[ Publications 



OF THE 

American Economic Association 



THIRD SERIES ISSUED QUARTERLY. 

Vol. VIII, No. 3. Price, I4.00 per Year. 



THE LABOR LEGISLATION 



OF CONNECTICUT 



BY 



ALBA M. EDWARDS, Ph.D. 



AUGUST, 1907 



published for the 
American Economic Association 

BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

NEW YORK 
LONDON : SWAN SONNENSCHBIN & CO. 



Entered as Second Class Matter at the New York, N. Y., Post OfiBce, May as. 



PRICE^ IN PAPER, Si.oo. 



AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION 

Organized at Saratoga, September 9, 1885. 



EX-PRESIDENTS 



♦Francis A. Walker 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 
*Charles F. Dunbar, 
Harvard University. 
John B. Clark, 

Columbia University. 
Henry C. Adams, 
University of Michigan. 



Arthur T. Hadley, 

Yale University. 
Richard T. Ely, 

University of Wisconsin. 
Edwin R. A. Seligman, 

Columbia University. 
Frank W. Taussig, 

Harvard University. 



OFFICERS FOR THE YEAR igoy 

President 
Jeremiah W. Jenks, 
Cornell University. 

Vice-Presidents 
Davis R. Dewey, 

Boston. 
Charles P. Neill, 

Washington, D. C. 
Charles B. Fillebrown, 

Boston. 

Secretary and Treasurer 
WiNTHROP M. Daniels, 
Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. 



Publication Committee 



Jacob H. Hollander, Chairman, 

John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 

Charles J. Bullock, 
Harvard University. 

James W. Crook, 
Amherst College 



A. W. Flux, 

McGill University. 
David Kinley, 

University of Illinois. 
William A. Scott, 

University of Wisconsin. 



Executive Committee 



Ex-Officio Members — 

The President 

The Ex-Presidents 

The Vice-Presidents 

The Secretary-Treasurer 

The Chairman Publ. Com. 



Elected Members — 

Frank H. Dixon, Dartmouth College 
Henry C. Emery, Yale. University 
Frank A. Fetter, Cornell University 
John H. Gray, Northwestern University 
B. H. Meyer, University of Wisconsin 
Henry R. Seager, Columbia University 



Inquiries and other communications regarding membership, meetings, and the general affairs of the 
Association should be addressed to the Secretary of the American Economic Association^ Princeton 
University, Princeton, N. J. 

Orders for publication should be addressed to The Macmillan Co., 66 Fifth Avenue, New York. 
♦Deceased. 



Publications 

OF THE 

American Economic Association 



THIRD SERIES 
Vol. VII, No. 3. 



ISSUED QUARTERLY. 
Price, $4.00 per Ybar. 



u 



^3 



THE LABOR LEGISLATION 



OF CONNECTICUT 



BY 



ALBA M. EDWARDS, Ph.D. 



li*iwC#^ 



^i>V^ 



V 



U^KARY of CONGRESS 
Two Cooles Received 

SFF 23 »90r 

y Copynrht Entry 
CLASS /t KXc., No. 
COPY B. 



Copyright, 1907, by 
American Economic Association 




^ TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

Page 

Preface vii 

CHAPTER I. 

Child Labor i 

I. Legislation from 1842 to 1869 2 

Law of 1650 3 

Law of 1813 4 

Enforcement 5 

Law of 1842 7 

Law of 1855 10 

, Law of 1856 10 

I Law of 1867 10 

1 Violations and Enforcement of the Laws 11 

Public Opinion 11 

I The Attitude of Employers 11 

I The Attitude of Parents 12 

( Development of Manufacturing 13 

I II. Legislation from 1869 to 1906 15 

(a) School Attendance Laws 15 

Law of 1869 15 

J Law of 1871 15 

Law of 1872 19 

j Law of 1877 21 

I Law of 1880 22 

: Law of 1882 23 

j Law of 1885 24 

j Amendments 25 

[ Enforcement 28 

I (b) Child Labor Laws 29 

Law of 1886 29 

The Amendment of 1895 35 

Age Certificate Laws 38 

Enforcement 42 

( (c) Exhibiting Children 45 

(d) Operating Elevators 45 

(e) Evening Schools 46 

Law of 1893 47 

Law of 1903 so 

The Middletown Investigation 52 



iv Contents. 

Violations and Enforcement of the Child Labor and 

Education Laws 62 

Public Opinion d}, 

Attitude of Employers dT, 

Attitude of Parents 65 

Attitude of the Enforcing Agents ^'j 

Decrease of Child Labor 69 

Conclusion , 72 

CHAPTER IL 
Hours of Labor, and the Economic Effects of the Restric- 
tions ON Child and Woman Labor 74 

(a) Hours of Labor 74 

The Eight Hour Law \ 75 

The Ten Hour Law 76 

The Decline in Weekly Hours of Labor 79 

(b) The Economic Effects of the Restrictions on Child and 

Woman Labor 83 

The Economic Effects of the Ten Hour Law 85 

The Cotton Industry in Connecticut and the South 91 



CHAPTER HL 

The Employment Contract and the Employer's Liability... too 

Influencing the Vote of an Employee 100 

Notice of Intention to Leave Employment 102 

Joining Labor Unions 103 

The 'Tadrone Law" 105 

Company Stores and Tenements 108 

Importation of Laborers no 

The Employer's Liability no 

Common Law Decisions in 

The Connecticut Law 115 

CHAPTER IV. 

The Laborer's Wages 117 

Preferred Claim of Laborer 117 

Railroad Laborer's Wages Secured 118 

Discounting Wages 118 

Exemption of Wages from Foreign Attachment 119 

Assignment of Wages 122 

Weekly Payment of Wages 123 

Mechanic's Lien I33 



Contents. v 

CHAPTER V. 

Boycotting and Blacklisting 135 

The Anti-Conspiracy Acts 135 

The "Glidden Case" 138 

The "Teamster's Case" 152 

Blacklisting 162 

CHAPTER VI. 
Free Pubic Employment Bureaus 170 

CHAPTER VH. 
Mediation and Arbitration 181 

CHAPTER VHI. 
The Union Label 189 

CHAPTER IX. 
The Barbers' License Law 199 

CHAPTER X. 

Convict Labor 216 

The Law 216 

Old Newgate 220 

Industries Carried on at the State Prison 224 

The Contract System 233 

Competition with Convict Labor 236 

The Financial Success of the Contract System 244 

The Piece-Price System 246 

The Public Account System 247 

CHAPTER XL 

The Factory Acts 252 

I. The Factory Inspection Laws 252 

The Act of 1887 252 

The Factory Inspector 256 

The Inspector's Orders 258 

Reports of the Factory Inspector 260 

Guarding Dangerous Machinery 262 

Elevators 263 

Ventilation and Sanitation 265 

Light in Workrooms 267 

Water-Closets 270 

Dressing Rooms 273 

Toilet Rooms in Foundries 273 

Health 274 



vi Contents. 

Fire Escapes 274 

Seats for Female Employees 281 

II. Tenement House Workshops 282 

III. The Regulation and Inspection of Bakeries 286 

IV. Enforcement and Effects of the Factory Inspection Laws 296 

CHAPTER XIL 
The Connecticut Bureau of Labor Statistics 301 

CHAPTER XIII. 
Summary and Conclusion 309 

APPENDIX. 

Index to the Labor Laws of Connecticut 316 

Digest of the Child Labor Laws of Connecticut 319 



PREFACE. 

In this study the purpose has been to discuss the labor 
legislation of Connecticut historically and critically, and, 
so far as possible, to trace the economic effects of the 
different laws. The aim has been to treat only those laws 
which belong to the industrial period in Connecticut — 
those which have been enacted since the rise of the fac- 
tory system, and the industrial, wage-working class. Few 
of these laws ante-date the year 1842. The laws of the 
colonial period, many of which extend far over into this 
period, are not discussed. The selection of laws for dis- 
cussion has been arbitrary. Those have been included 
which, to the writer, seemed to be the important labor 
laws of Connecticut. 

The numerous subjects discussed and the length of the 
period covered has prevented as intensive a study of 
certain points as the writer would have liked. On some 
of the subjects little is published, and often what is pub- 
lished is not reliable. Frequently the memory of the 
people interviewed was found to be short and treacher- 
ous. At certain points the abundance of the legislation 
renders the movement slow and tedious. The writer 
regrets that this is necessarily so. 

My special gratitude is due Professor Henry W, Far- 
nam, of Yale University, for valuable suggestions and 
criticisms. It is a pleasure to acknowledge my obliga- 
tions for the courtesies extended and the services ren- 
dered by the Secretary and Agents of the State Board of 
Education of Connecticut, by the Factory Inspector of 
Connecticut and his deputies, and by the Commissioner 
of the Connecticut Bureau of Labor Statistics and his 



viii Preface. 

clerks. To the large number of manufacturers, work- 
ingmen, officials of labor organizations and others who 
furnished me information, I am truly thankful. I am 
indebted to the Carnegie Institution of Washington for 
financial aid while pursuing my investigations. 

Alba M. Edwards. 
New Haven, Conn., May i, 1906. 



CHAPTER I. 

CHILD LABOR. 

The child labor laws constitute the earliest and most 
important branch of labor legislation in Connecticut. 
They are also the most voluminous. The leading citizens 
and legislators early recognized the right and duty of 
the State to secure the best welfare of all its citizens by 
securing to each child a minimum of education and a 
natural physical and moral development; and the State 
has long assumed its right to control the child, (i) for 
its own safety, (2) for the welfare of its citizens, and 
(3) for the benefit of its ward, the child. 

There has been but little need for a justification of the 
right of the State to regulate child labor. At the time of 
the enactment of the first law, in 1842, it had been but a 
generation since the people of Connecticut were accus- 
tomed to the General Court regulating the minute details 
of family life — dress, manners, occupation, recreation. 
It is in a later generation that we meet the first protest 
that the State is infringing on parental rights. Then, 
experience had shown that "parents are not the best 
judges of the advantages or disadvantages of protective 
legislation," that they are not "unprejudiced judges," 
that "they are too short-sighted to see the inevitable and 
far-reaching effects of their action," that "they whose 
interest it is to oppose reform are [not] those best quali- 
fied to decide as to its necessity," and that often "they 
require the education of the law to arouse them to a 
consciousness of parental responsibility."^ 

^Economic Rev., 10: 350. 
413] 1 



2 American Economic Association [414 

This legislation covers two periods, 1842- 1869, and 
1 869- 1 906. The first period is characterized (i) by a 
deep interest in the subject on the part of the State Board 
of Education and a few leading citizens, and an almost 
utter lack of interest on the part of the general public; 
(2) by a deplorable absence of any official information 
as to the exact conditions that existed in the factories of 
the State; and (3) by the enactment of a few loosely 
constructed laws, without the creation of any adequate 
enforcing power. During the second period there has 
been a growing public interest in the matter; the laws 
have been increased in number and made more stringent ; 
their enforcement has become gradually less lax, and 
they have become more effective for good. 

In the discussion of the first period the Reports of the 
State Board of Education must be relied on almost 
wholly. These were based on no thorough investigation 
of conditions, but only on the reports of school visitors, 
superintendents, etc. In the absence of other accounts I 
offer what I have gleaned from them for what it is worth, 
recognizing fully that many of these statements may be 
biased and that almost all are based upon insufficient 
observation and investigation. From what later investi- 
gations have revealed it is safe to assume that these 
reports are optimistic rather than otherwise. 

I. Legislation from 1842 to 1869. 
Child labor legislation in Connecticut began in the 
year 1842. The few laws in the interest of children 
passed before this time were religious or educational 
rather than labor laws. They were prompted by interest 
in the child's spiritual and moral welfare, and not by any 
interest in its physical welfare, or by an appreciation of 
its rights or of the duty of society to it. There were 



415] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 3 

two of these laws before 1842, and although, strictly 
speaking, they were not labor laws, yet they were the 
forerunners of labor legislation. In them are found the 
dim beginnings of much of the later child labor legis- 
lation. 

Lazv of 16^0. — The first of these is contained in the 
Connecticut code of 1650. It provided that, 

"Forasmuch as the good education of children is of 
singular behoof e and benefit to any commonwealth" 
parents "shall not suffer so much barbarisme in any of 
theire familyes as not to endeavor to teach 
theire children and apprentices so much learning as may 
inable them perfectly to read the English tongue and 
knowledge of the capitall laws upon penalty of twenty 
shillings," and shall "once a week at least, catechise theire 
children and servants in the grounds and principles of 
religion . . . ; and further that all parents and mas- 
ters do breed and bring up theire children and apprentices 
in some honest lawful calling, labor or employment . . . 
profitable for themselves and the Commonwealth, if they 
will not or cannot train them up in learning, to fit them 
for higher employments ..." 

The selectmen were designated to enforce the law, and to 
that end, if necessary, were to bind out the children of 
negligent parents. 

This law, with but minor changes, was re-enacted at 
intervals. In the revision of 1821 (G. S. Title 14, sees. 
I and 2), it provides, 

"That all parents and those who have care of children, 
shall bring them up in some honest and lawful calling or 
employment and shall teach them and instruct them, or 
cause them to be taught and instructed, to read and write 
and cipher as far as the first four rules of arithmetic." 

Section two provides that the selectmen shall "inspect 
the conduct of the heads of families, and if they find any 



4 American Economic Association [416 

who neglect the education of children under their care" 
they shall first admonish them and then, if necessary, bind 
the children out to some proper master that "they may 
be properly educated and brought up in some lawful 
calling and employment." 

Section two of this law appeared for the last time in 
1882 (ch. 80), but section one survived and with little 
change was included in the revision of 1902 (G. S. Title 
12, ch. 130). Thus we have in the present law a part 
of the law of 1650. The history of this law is interesting 
as showing the persistency with which for two hundred 
and fifty-two years some of its provisions have been 
copied literally, doubtless more because of the high senti- 
ments they express, than because of any real effect that 
they have ever produced. This law, though it was prob- 
ably needed and enforced when first passed, has surely 
outlived its usefulness by a century. 

Law of 18 1 J. — The second of these two early laws was 
first enacted in 18 13 (ch. 2). It is very similar to the 
first and bears the same Puritanic stamp ; but as it refers 
to employers of children rather than to their parents, it 
more nearly approaches a child labor law. It provides 
that, 

"The president and directors of all factories, . . . and 
the proprietor or proprietors of all other manufacturing 
establishments . . . shall cause that the children 
employed ... be taught to read and write, and also, 
that they be instructed in the four^ first rules of arith- 
metic (provided the term of their service shall be of so 
long duration that such instruction can be given) and 
that due attention be paid to the preservation of their 
morals; and that they be required by their masters or 
employers, regularly to attend public worship." 



So written in the law. 



417] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 5 

Section two provides that once a year the civil author- 
ity and selectmen shall 

* 'carefully to examine and ascertain whether the requisi- 
tions of this act, which relate to the instruction and the 
preservation of the morals of the children employed as 
aforesaid, be duly observed," and if not that they may 
report the proprietor to the county court which may 
release the children from their contract with him, or 
may fine him not to exceed $100.00. 

This law, too, was little more than a recorded expres- 
sion of the humanitarian views of a few progressive men 
in the educational line. There was no attempt on the 
part of ''the civil authorities and selectmen" to enforce it. 
It appeared for the last time in the revision of 1866 (G. 
S. Title 13, ch. 6, sees. 99 and 100). 

The Report of the Board of Commissioners of Com- 
mon Schools, 1842 (p. 2^), says, 

"Prior to 1838, no inquiry had been instituted into the 
condition of education in the manufacturing districts, 
nor the extent to which the requisitions of the law, as 
to the duty of owners and proprietors of factories and 
manufacturing establishments, to the children employed 
by them were complied with." 

An investigation showed that, 

"At one time there were twenty-four children employed 
in a single factory, who could not write their names, and 
five who could neither read nor write — and that in not a 
single town had a board of visitation, as directed by law, 
been organized, to examine and ascertain the existence 
of such facts and apply the remedy." — Ihid., p. 28. 

Enforcement. — There were three principal reasons 
why, before 1842, there were but these two laws and both 
of them unenforced : ( i ) The general lack of interest in 
education and the poor quality of the schools. Till far 
past the middle of the century there was a general indif- 



6 American Economic Association [418 

ference of the masses about education.^ The school terms 
were short, and the schools were of poor quality. The 
teachers were ignorant and indifferent.* The attendance 
was small and irregular. It was felt that the child missed 
little by staying out of school. 

*'Of 85,000 children between the ages of four and six- 
teen in the State . . . from seven to eight thousand 
attend no school public or private."^ 

(2) The newness of the factory system, and the com- 
paratively small number of children employed in the 
factories. Not until the beginning of the past century 
were there any manufacturing or mechanical establish- 
ments in the State to employ children and keep them 
from school. Children were employed on the farms, but 
all were expected to attend school in the winter. The 
introduction of the factory necessitated a radical change 
in the mode of life and labor. It took from the time of 
the establishment of the first cotton factory, at Vernon, 
Hartford County, about 1804,^ till 1842 for the leading 
people of the State to make this transition in thought, 
and it was not until 1890 that the masses can be said to 
have adjusted themselves to the new conditions in both 
thought and action. The second cotton mill in the State 

®"As in the early days the New Haven Colony stood alone, 
wearing the honor of being the first commonwealth on the face of 
the globe to maintain free schools for all its youth, so in 1868 Con- 
necticut stood alone among the New England States, enjoying the 
unenviable distinction of being the only one in which free schools 
were not established by law." 

"Yet, strange as it may now seem, the proposition to make the schools 
free met with strong and determined opposition, and it was carried 
only by the persistent efforts of men who were ready to sacrifice 
popularity and to risk obloquy for the public good." — Report State 
Board of Education, 1883, p. 11. 

* Teacher's wages for the summer term ranged from $1 to $4.75 
a week. — Report Superintendent Common Schools, 1849, p. 129. 

''Report Board of School Commissioners, 1841, p. 18. 

' U. S. Twelfth Census, v. VIII, p. 79- 



419] 



Labor Legislation of Connecticut 



was set in operation in the town of Pomfret, now Put- 
nam, in 1806.^ "Nine boys and girls picked up in the 
neighborhood with three or four men to help and oversee 
them comprised its working force. "^ But establishments 
increased rapidly, and in 1840 there were in Connecticut 
116 cotton factories employing 5,153 hands; and 119 
woolen factories, employing 2,356 hands.^ The com- 
parative cheapness of the labor of women and children 
led to its extensive introduction into the factories. 

(3) The need and greed of the parents, and their 
ignorance of the child's needs physically and intellectu- 
ally, often led them to exploit their children "for the 
miserable pittance which their service would earn." 

Thus, although for several years before 1842 there 
had been much need for the restriction of child labor 
and for compulsory school attendance, the people had 
not awakened to this need. 

Law of 1842. — The Board of Commissioners of Com- 
mon Schools, aroused by the conditions that the investi- 
gation of 1838 had shown to exist in the factories of the 
State, recommended, in its report of 1842, the passage 
of a law regulating the employment of children in such 
establishments. The act of 1842 (ch. 3) followed. It 
provides that, 

"No child under the age of fifteen years shall be 
employed to labor in any manufacturing establishment, 
or any other business in this state, unless such child shall 
have attended some public or private day school . . . 
at least three months of the twelve months next pre- 
ceding any and every year in which said child shall be 
so employed," and that the employer shall pay a penalty 
of twenty-five dollars for each offense. 



'U. S. Twelfth Census, v. VIII, p. 79- 

^ Report State Board of Education, 1886, p. 40. 

'U. S. Twelfth Census, v. IX, pp. 54, 122. 



8 American Economic Association [420 

Section two provides that a certificate of attendance 
signed and sworn to by the child's teacher shall ''be 
sufficient evidence of that fact." It provides, also, that 
the school visitors shall investigate the condition of the 
children in the factories "annually and as often as they 
shall think proper" and report all violations of the law 
to some informing officer, who shall prosecute for such 
violations.^ 

Section three prohibits the employment in any cotton 
or woolen factory of any child under fourteen years of 
age, for a longer time than ten hours in any one day, 
and fixes the penalty for violation at seven dollars. The 
law is the same in the revision of 1866 (G. S. Title 13, 
ch. 4, sees. 47 and 48). 

Section one of this law, by requiring attendance at 
school "at least three months of the twelve months next 
preceding any and every year" in which the child was 
employed, made it possible for a child to be absent from 
school and at work for a period of twenty-one months. 

While the law stated explicitly that no child under 
fifteen who had not attended school three months of the 
previous year should be employed, and placed a penalty 
upon such employment, it did not say (sec. 2) that the 
employer should demand and keep on file a certificate of 
school attendance, and provide a penalty for his not 
doing so, but only that such certificate should be deemed 
"sufficient evidence of that fact." If he wished to guar- 
antee himself against prosecutions under the previous 
section of the act here was a means provided for his 
doing so; but as prosecutions were "unheard of," there 
was little incentive for his taking the trouble to guarantee 
himself against them. 



" This provision, never heeded, is still on the statute books. 



42 1] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 9 

The provision prohibiting the employment of children 
under fourteen over ten hours a day in cotton and woolen 
factories is interesting as evidence that even at that early 
date there were those who rcognized the evil of employ- 
ing the young children for long hours in the cotton and 
woolen mills. 

A few extracts from the reports of the State Board of 
Education will give the best idea of the enforcement and 
the effect of the law during this period. 

"But it is not enforced; it is not likely to be: Nobody 
assumes the responsibility of seeing that its requirements 
are obeyed." — 1866. 

''These provisions . . . are in fact almost void. 
Prosecutions are unheard of for the violations of the law, 
although the abuse is open to the observation of the 
community. Occasionally the acting school visitors re- 
monstrate, and the newspapers sometimes complain, but 
still the inhumanity is not checked. Public opinion does 
not cry out for the execution of the law." — 1867. 

"If I were to attempt to execute the present law, this 
village would he too hot to hold me." — School Visitor, 
1866. 

"Large numbers who are under fifteen years of age 
are employed in factories in direct violation of the law, 
during the whole year." — 1867. 

"In one factory were found two girls eleven years old, 
and one twelve years, who had not been in school for 
two years; one fourteen years, not in school for five 
years; one eleven years, one fifteen, and one seventeen, 
each not in school for four years ; one thirteen years, not 
in school for three years. All these were girls. In the 
same district were eleven boys, all of school age, who 
had been absent from school, on an average, over three 
years." — 1868, p. 24. 

In a few school districts and cities of the State, how- 
ever, there seems to have been an attempt to enforce the 



10 American Economic Association [422 

law;^^ and a few companies formed notable exceptions 
to the general rule of indifference on the part of em- 
ployers. 

Law of 1855. — In 1855 a law (ch. 45) was passed 
making ten hours of labor in a mechanical or manufac- 
turing establishment a lawful day's work in absence of an 
agreement; fixing nine years as the minimum age limit 
for the employment of children in such establishments; 
and prohibiting the employment therein of minors under 
eighteen years of age more than eleven hours a day. 
Twenty dollars was the penalty for violation, but there 
was no provision for enforcement. 

Law of 1856. — An act of 1856 (ch. 39) raised the 
minimum age for the employment of children in mechan- 
ical and manufacturing establishments to ten years, and 
the hours for the employment of minors under eighteen 
to not ''more than twelve hours in any one day, nor more 
than sixty-nine hours in any one week." It also made it 
the duty of the constables and grand jurors to enforce 
the law. 

In 1867 (ch- 124) the hours of labor for a minor 
under fifteen were limited to ten a day and fifty-eight a 
week, in manufacturing and mechanical establishments. 
The penalty for violation was fifty dollars for the em- 
ployer and ten dollars for the guardian or parent. The 
constables and grand jurors were to enforce the act. 

All that was said of the violations and enforcement of 
the act of 1842 is true of the acts of 1855, 1856, and 
1867. The law went unheeded, and until long past this 
time children from eight to ten years old were working 
in the factories, and long work days for minors were 
common. 

" "It does not appear that any efficient or well directed efforts were 
ever made to enforce this law. I have, however, been informed that 



423] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 11 

Violations and Enforcement of the Laws. 

There can hardly be said to have been any enforcement 
of the laws during this period. No provision for the 
enforcement of some was made, while in others the en- 
forcing power was delegated to the selectmen, the school 
visitors, the constables, the grand jurors or the State's 
attorneys of the district. This was a burden placed upon 
these officers in addition to their primary duties, a bur- 
den, too, for which they were not specially paid. We are 
little surprised at the result. 

Public Opinion. — The general public seems to have 
been so indifferent about child labor legislation during 
this period that we can hardly discuss public opinion on 
the matter. What little opinion there was seems to have 
been in favor of the laws, but it was too weak to demand 
their enforcement. The State Board of Education, with 
a coterie of sympathizers, was the only body awake to 
the situation and the only one that demanded a general 
enforcement of the law; but it had no enforcing power, 
and it could do little more than make recommendations 
to the legislature and to the school officers, and, through 
its one secretary, try to interest the people in their own 
cause. 

The Attitude of Employers. — The attitude of the em- 
ployers was much that of the general public of which 
they were part — indifference. None of them seem to 
have opposed the law very strongly, most of them were 
in favor of its provisions, and a few actually tried on 
their own accord to carry them out. Instances are re- 
corded of school houses built or of schools supported by 



in one at least of the largest manufacturing towns in the state, the 
school visitors appointed a committee as the law provided, who were 
known as 'factory inspectors,' and that they visited the manufacturing 
establishments of the town." — Report State Board of Education, 
1886, p. 41. 



12 American Economic Association [424 

companies, and a few required certificates of school at- 
tendance of the children employed. But some of the 
companies "openly and persistently" violated the law. 
Some employers excused themselves on the plea that if 
they refused the children work they would lose both 
parents and children as operatives. The French Cana- 
dians, especially, demanded that they employ the whole 
family or none. The Secretary of the State Board of 
Education, in his report of 1866 (p. 83), says: 

'T am confident that if a law can be devised which 
public opinion will sustain and which the magistrates and 
school visitors, throughout the state, will be likely to 
enforce, the large manufacturing corporations will co- 
operate in insisting that every child employed should 
come under good instruction for a part of the year." 

The Attitude of Parents. — The attitude of the parents 
was one of general indifference by all as to the import- 
ance of the education of their children and as to the evils 
of employing them in factories; and, on the part of the 
foreign population, especially the French Canadians, there 
was a desire, prompted by cupidity, ignorance or neces- 
sity, to exploit their children for the small pittance earned 
by their labor. The French Canadians habitually kept 
their children from school to work them in the factories ; 
but parental indifference was the main cause of the non- 
attendance of the children of native parents. The Report 
of the State Board of Education, 1868 (p. 17, 24), says: 

''Less than one-half of the children of the state are 
found, on an average, in our public schools." "The class 
most indifferent to education ... in Connecticut is 
the French Canadians; ignorant themselves and willing 
their children should be like them, but most eager to 
press them, at the tenderest age, into our factories, thus 
dwarfing the body as well as the mind. ... In one 
district in Connecticut where the operatives are largely 



425] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 13 

French Canadians two hundred and twenty-nine out of 
three hundred and eighty-nine, of school age, do not 
attend school." 

While this period is characterized by an indifference 
to education and a general disregard of the child labor 
laws, yet it is evident that the thing most needed to have 
secured a general observance of the laws was a strong, 
centralized, salaried, enforcing power. There was no 
strong opposition to the law, there were no important 
economic difficulties or prejudices to overcome (except 
the cupidity, ignorance or necessity of a small minority 
of the parents), and industry would not have suffered 
materially from the law's enforcement. Rigid and gen- 
eral enforcement probably would have driven a number 
of undesirable French Canadian families from the State, 
but it would have met with no determined resistance, and 
would have resulted in no important injuries. 

Development of Manufacturing. — The following table 
shows that during the period 1842- 1870 manufacturing 
industries in Connecticut made enormous progress. From 
1850 to 1870 there was an increase of over three hun- 
dred per cent, in capital invested; an increase of over 
sixty per cent, in total wage earners ; an increase of over 
three hundred per cent, in the total amoimt of wages 
paid; and the value of the product more than trebled. 
The growth of cotton and of woolen manufactories was 
even more phenomenal. It will be noticed that at the 
close of this period there were 7,029 children under six- 
teen years of age employed in the manufacturing indus- 
tries of the State, and that 2,909 of these were employed 
in cotton, and 962 in woolen manufactories — more than 
half of the total in these two industries. Child labor 
legislation and its enforcement had not kept pace with 
this rapid industrial development. 



2i 8 •§ 

O - >» 

2 o o 

S ° w 



« O 

II 

Jo 












■* 


O 


M 


"!:j- 


CO 


O 


•<^ 


cn 


t^ 


o> 


M 


c<^ 










■^ 


N 


r^ 


vO 






o 


N 






ir> 


o 



X 



M 0^ 

CO CO 



w 



cj O 
U H 






^ ^ 






c3 

3 O Ph 



u 



a. 

CO 



427] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 15 

II. Legislation from 1869 to 1906. 
In 1869 (ch. 115, sec. 3) the State Board of Education 
was authorized to take such action as it deemed necessary 
to enforce the child labor law, and to appoint an agent 
for that purpose. This is the first time the enforcing 
power was placed in the hands of a central authority, and 
the first instance of a special, paid officer whose sole duty 
was to enforce the law. From this point forward the 
legislation may be said to have been rational, i. e., based 
on a more or less perfect knowledge of conditions as they 
actually existed in the factories and schools throughout 
the State. The enforcement, though still for sixteen 
years very lax, because of the inability of the one agent 
to cover the entire State, from this time on takes on a 
different character. At this time, too, public opinion 
began to be aroused from the lethargic state in which 
it had remained during the earlier period. At this point 
we see in the whole movement the beginnings of a new 
life and a new organization — a life and organization 
which gradually, though slowly, developed the advanced 
legislation of to-day and, along with it, the present high 
state of public opinion which approves these laws and 
demands their enforcement. This, then, seems the nat- 
ural division point for a new period. 

(a) School Attendance Laws. 
Law of i86q. — After the Civil War there was a great 
demand for help in Connecticut, and the French Cana- 
dians came in great numbers to work. Many of their 
children never went to school. Conditions in the eastern 
part of the State became very bad. This led to the pas- 
sage of the law of 1869, which was aimed largely at this 
foreign element. This law (ch. 115) reduces the age at 
which a child who has not attended school three months 
of the preceding year, can be employed in manufacturing 



i6 American Economic Association [428 

or other business, from fifteen to fourteen years, and 
raises the penalty for violation from twenty-five to one 
hundred dollars. ^^ The state attorneys and the grand 
jurors are to enquire after and make presentment of all 
offenses. Section three empowers the State Board of 
Education to take such action as they deem necessary to 
enforce the law, and they are authorized to appoint an 
agent for that purpose. This section, by providing for an 
enforcing agent under the supervision of the State Board 
of Education, makes of this the first law that had any 
chance of being effective. In the agent, we have for the 
first time an officer whose special business it is to enforce 
the law and who is paid for doing it; and in the State 
Board of Education we have the body of men the most in- 
terested, the best qualified, and the most capable of dealing 
with the subject of child labor in its relation to education. 
The enforcing agent found it impracticable to enforce 
the law of 1869 to the letter. 

"In nearly all the manufacturing districts of the State, 
the school houses would not hold all the children, in and 
out of the mills, at the same time, so that the refusal of 
the manufacturers under the influence of the agent, to 
employ children contrary to the letter of the law, would 
have been a positive detriment to the children, to their 
parents and to the State; for a portion of the children 
could not have found room in the schools, and their 
parents would have been deprived of their earnings with- 
out any compensating good to either party." Had the 
law been enforced strictly ''thousands of children between 
the ages of ten and fourteen would have been consigned 
to the temptations of street life."^^ 

It was found, too, that many families would have to 
call upon the towns for aid if the pay of all the children 
in each family were suspended at the same time. In this 

" See act of 1842, ch. 3. 

" Report State Board of Education, 1870, p. 18. 



429] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 17 

dilemma the agent agreed with the manufacturers that 
they were to divide the children in each mill into two or 
three classes, and send out to school one class the first 
term, another class the second term, and the third class 
the third term, so that each child might get its three 
months schooling during the year. To save the parents 
from distress and the towns from expense, large families 
of children were to be divided into the different classes. 
Nearly three-fourths of the manufacturers signed an 
agreement that, beginning with the next term of school, 
they would employ no children under fourteen years of 
age who had not certificates of school attendance. 

This law involved trouble in securing substitutes in 
the mills, increased taxation for schools and new school 
houses, necessitated additional tenements, and, on the 
eastern border of the State, caused a loss of help on ac- 
count of the perfect freedom with which parents could 
work their children in Rhode Island. Yet these manu- 
facturers are said to have supported the enforcement of 
the law and to have stood by their agreement with the 
agent of the State Board of Education, until they found 
that the children they had dismissed from their factories 
had gone to the streets and not to school, and that whole 
families, when their children were dismissed, were re- 
moving to other places or were merely shifting to other 
factories.^^ Then, as the object sought by complying 
was not being accomplished, compliance ceased. ^^ The 
French Canadian parents, especially, were opposed to the 
law, and often refused to send their children to school 
when they were dismissed for this purpose. 



"Reports State Board of Education, 1870, pp. 21, 34; 1871, p. 10; 
and 1873, pp. 15, 16. 

^"The good faith of the manufacturers in making these promises 
has been questioned. Some told the next agent that the promises 
were not made to be kept. 



1 8 American Economic Association [430 

Law of i8ji. — Under the law of 1869 the Agent of the 
State Board of Education could dismiss children under 
fourteen from the factories, but he could not compel their 
attendance at school. In 1871 (ch. 52) an attempt was 
made to remedy this defect, and to correct the abuses 
which had grown up under it. By this law parents and 
guardians of children between six and fourteen years of 
age were required to send them to school when they were 
dismissed for that purpose, unless such attendance was 
excused by the school visitors because of the physical dis- 
ability of the child or because of the pecuniary necessities 
of the parents. There was a penalty of five dollars for each 
week's violation of the law, but no provision was made for 
its enforcement. It was unheeded^^ and violations of the 
law of 1869 continued as before. ^''^ Yet, in exceptional 
cases, the law of 1869 was obeyed carefully, and it seems 
to have increased the school attendance of the State mate- 
rially. It also had a tendency to discourage the employ- 
ment of children under fourteen. 



""I have not learned that any attempt was made to enforce the 
law of 1871 . . . except in a very few cases." — Report State 
Board of Education, 1873, p. 16. 

""New statistics show that here are nearly twelve thousand 
children in the State who are never registered in any school." — 
Report State Board of Education, 1871, p. 13. 

"But indifference, neglect and truancy still remain. . . . There 
are 11,947 children between four and sixteen in no school." — Ihid., 
1872, p. 28. 

"The number of children between four and sixteen years of age 
who have attended no school (during the last year) is about 13,500." 
—Ibid., 1873, p. 21. 

"... About three thousand children under fourteen years of 
age are simultaneously employed in the various manufacturing estab- 
lishments of the State . . . and at least fifteen hundred never 
attend school"— Ibid., 1874, p. 15. In 1875, 332 factories out of 500 
investigated were employing children under fourteen years of age — 
a total of 2,292 children. In 55 of these factories 535 children, who 
had not attended school during the preceding twelve months, were 
found. — Ibid., 1875, p. 46. 



43 1] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 19 

Law of 18 y 2. — The law of 1872 (ch. 77) is mainly a 
codification of the laws of 1650, 1869 and 1871. As 
these laws have been discussed, a brief statement of their 
provisions will suffice here. 

Lavu of 16 jo. — Children shall be brought up in some 
honest and lawful calling or employment and be in- 
structed in reading, writing, English grammar, geogra- 
phy, and arithmetic. Law of 18 dp. — No child under 
fourteen years of age shall be employed in any business 
unless it shall have attended school at least three months 
of the twelve months next preceding the year in which 
employed. Law of i8yi. — Parents shall send children 
between eight and fourteen years of age to school when 
they are discharged from employment for that purpose. 

The provision of the law of 1871 which excused school 
attendance because of the ''pecuniary necessities of the 
parents" is omitted here. In 1871 the age during which 
children were required to attend school was between six 
and fourteen, here it is between eight and fourteen. This 
is a good example of how, at this time, laws were passed, 
ignored, and finally forgotten. By the law of 1858 (ch. 
39) ten years was made the minimum age for employ- 
ment of children in manufacturing and mechanical estab- 
lishments. The law was the same in the revision of 1866 
(Title 13, ch. 4, sec. 50) and was on the statute book at 
this time. Hence, the "six" in the law of 1871 and the 
"eight" in the law of 1872 are evidence of two things: 
first, that children of these ages were actually working in 
the factories at this time, and, secondly, that the mini- 
mum age law of 1856 had been so long a dead letter that 
even legislators had forgotten its existence — a fact fur- 
ther evidenced by its entire omission from the revision 
of 1875.18 



""I am not prepared to say it should be re-enacted. It is better 
to enforce the observance of a few laws than to increase their num- 
ber."— Agent State Board of Education, Report of 1881, p. 22. 



20 American Economic Association [432 

The new provision in the law of 1872 was the one that 
provided that every child between the ages of eight and 
fourteen years should attend school at least three months 
in each year, six weeks of the attendance to be consecu- 
tive. The provision is the same in the revision of 1875 
(Title II, ch. I, sec. i). This law was the first that 
attempted to secure schooling to all children regardless 
of whether they worked or not, and it had an appreciable 
effect on the school attendance in the factory villages ; but 
it was loose, indefinite, and poorly enforced. A child 
might be absent from school eighteen months at one time, 
or he might attend regularly for six weeks and then 
make up the remaining six weeks by occasional visits. 
Then the question arose as to what constituted a year, 
and what a week's or a month's schooling. In 1880 
(ch. 17) the law was amended to read, "sixty days in 
each consecutive twelve months." This in turn was 
changed in 1882 (ch. 80, sec. 2) to, ''at least twelve 
weeks, or sixty full school days, in any consecutive twelve 
months." The amendments of 1880 and 1882 did much 
to remedy the defects in the law and make it enforcible, 
but it still required but six weeks of the attendance to be 
consecutive. 

While the law of 1871 made no provision for its en- 
forcement, that of 1872 went to the other extreme and 
provided that the state's attorneys and grand jurors en- 
quire after and make presentment of all offenses; that 
the school visitors once or more every year examine into 
the situation of the children employed and report viola- 
tions ; that the selectmen inspect the conduct of the heads 
of the families as to the proper bringing up and educating 
of their children and apprentices; and that the State 
Board of Education take such steps as they might deem 
proper to secure the observance of the law and that they 



433] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 21 

might appoint an agent for that purpose. The law, how- 
ever, was not enforced. ^^ 

Law of 18/"/. — One provision of the law of 1842 (re- 
enacted in 1869 and 1872) was that no child under four- 
teen years of age should be employed in any business, 
unless it had attended school ''at least three months of the 
twelve months next preceding" the year in which em- 
ployed. This law, it will be remembered, allowed the 
child to be absent from school for twenty-one months at 
one time. Finally in 1877 (ch. 112) this loop hole was 
stopped by amending the law (G. S. 1875, Title 11, ch. i, 
sec. 2) to read, "sixty days of the twelve months next 
preceding any month." But there was no careful enforce- 
ment of the law. 2^ 



" "In the fall of 1873 there were found employed in one cotton 
factory in this State 231 children under fourteen years of age, the 
whole number of operatives being about 1200. . . . Very few of 
those children had ever attended school at all."— Report State Board 
of Education, 1885, p. 31. (The writer has been informed in regard 
to the above case that 57 of the children were under eight 5^ears old ; 
also, that there were 730 school children enumerated in the village, 
and but two school rooms.) 

^" " . , . Complaint is made that very young children are 
employed to a great extent in manufactories, and that the law for- 
bidding the employment of any child under fourteen years of age, 
without such child has had at least three months schooling during 
the year, is too often disregarded in the manufacturing towns and 
villages." — Report Connecticut Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1875, 
p. 14. 

"... Many children have doubtless been unlawfully employed 
during the past year." — Report State Board of Education, 1878, p. 24. 

"One of the villages visited , . . was Baltic. Here it was 
found that a large number of children, between the ages of eight and 
fourteen years had been kept from school more than a year, several 
for more than two years, and some had never attended school. On a 
subsequent visit, there was handed me a list of names of children 
said to have been discharged from the factory for the purpose of 
attending school, but on visiting the schools a few only of those 
children were found to be in attendance; some of them were still in 
the factory." The prosecution of three parents and the Superinten- 



22 American Economic Association [434 

Law of 1880. — The act of 1842 (ch. 3) provided that a 
certificate signed and sworn to by the child's teacher 
should be ''deemed sufficient evidence" that the child had 
attended school three months the preceding year, as re- 
quired by law. This provision was repealed in 1869 (ch. 
115, sec. 4), and no evidence of school attendance was 
required until 1880. By an act of that year (1880, ch. 
37) parents of children under fourteen years of age were 
required to furnish the employer certificates of school at- 
tendance, signed by the teacher, school visitor, or school 
committee; and the employer was required to keep the 
certificates on file and open to inspection by any school 
visitor of the town or by the secretary or agent of the 
State Board of Education, during the time the child was 
employed. The certificates were to be evidence of such 
attendance. There was no provision for enforcement, 
and no penalty was fixed for violation. 

Such a provision was much needed, for employers who 
wished to obey the law had no evidence of the child's 
age or schooling, except its own statement or that of its 
parents. These statements were often far below par. 
The bill had been defeated in 1879 because it was claimed 
that to require employers to keep such certificates on file 
would cause them much trouble. But it seems "that for 
some years many employers of large numbers of chil- 
dren" had demanded such certificates and kept them on 
file.^^ The law had a tendency to promote regularity of 
attendance during the time required. It seems needless 

dent was followed the next week by 70 new scholars in the village 
schools, 54 of them being from the factory. — Ibid., 1879, p. 27. "Last 
spring I called on an American, the father of three children whose 
ages were nine, ten and thirteen years, who had never attended 
school at all, and no claim was made that they had ever been in- 
structed at home. . . . The father was not too poor to clothe and 
otherwise provide for them properly." — Ibid., 1880, p. 23. 
^ Report State Board of Education, 1880, p. 22. 



435] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 23 

to add that there was no general observance of its pro- 
visions.^^ 

Law of 1882. — The law of 1882 (ch. 80) is mainly a 
compilation of the child labor and education laws at this 
time. Its provisions and the laws to which they belonged 
are as follows : 

(i) Parents shall bring up their children in some 
honest and lawful calling or employment and instruct 
them in reading, writing, English grammar, geography 
and arithmetic (1650, 1821, 1872, 1880, ch. 17); (2) 
The parent of a child over eight and under fourteen shall 
send it to school twelve weeks or sixty school days in any 
consecutive twelve months, six weeks to be consecutive, — 
penalty, five dollars for each week's violation (1872, 
1880, ch. 17) ; (3) No child under fourteen years of age 
who has resided in the United States nine months shall 
be employed unless it has attended school twelve weeks 
or sixty school days of the twelve months preceding any 
month in which it shall be employed, nor unless six weeks 
of such attendance shall have been consecutive, — penalty, 
not more than sixty dollars (1842, 1869, 1872, 1877, 
ch. 112) ; (4) The parent of a child under fourteen years 
of age shall furnish the employer a certificate of school 
attendance, and the employer shall keep it on file, — pen- 
alty for false statement by the parent, not over seven 
dollars, or thirty days' imprisonment (1880, ch. 37). 

The same provision is made for the enforcement of 
this act as was made for the law of 1872 (ch. yy). The 
only new feature in the act is that the required school 
attendance of children who are employed is changed from 
"sixty days in each consecutive twelve months" (1880, 
ch. 17), to "at least twelve weeks or sixty full school 
days in any consecutive twelve months," and that chil- 
dren who have not resided nine months in the United 
States are exempt from this requirement. This exemp- 
tion was made in the desire not to be hard on poor for- 

=^/&Jd., 1882, p. 18. 



24 American Economic Association [436 

eign families, who had just moved to the State, by requir- 
ing their children to enter school at once. It only made 
a loop hole in the law, through which the children of 
these very families (who came here to work and often 
did not stay over "nine months" at a time) slipped into 
the factories and evaded the school requirements entirely. 
It was carried through the revision of 1888 (ch. 131, sec, 
2105), but was finally repealed in i899( ch. 41). 

Law of 1885. — This law of 1882 was complicated 
enough for all practical purposes. It was rendered much 
more complicated and difficult to understand and enforce 
by the law of 1885 ^"^^ its amendment of 1887, which 
covered much the same field as certain sections of the law 
of 1882 and yet did not repeal those sections. 

The law of 1885 (^h. 90) provides that children over 
eight and under sixteen years of age must attend a public 
day school regularly and constantly while in session, or 
receive elsewhere thorough instruction in the studies 
taught in the public schools. ^^ Section two of the act 
exempts from this requirement "children under fourteen 
years of age who have attended school twelve weeks of 
the preceding twelve months," according to the require- 
ments of the law of 1882 (ch. 80), and children over 
fourteen years of age, "while properly employed to labor 
at home or elsewhere." Section three provides a fine of 
not exceeding five dollars for each week's violation on 
the part of any person, unless the child has not fit cloth- 
ing, and the parent is unable to provide such clothing. 
The exemption of children under thirteen was often taken 

^^ An act of 1887 (ch. 146) required the teachers or persons having 
control of private schools to keep registers of attendance, in the form 
prescribed for the public schools, and open to inspection by the 
secretary and agents of the State Board of Education. They were 
required, also, to make to the secretary of the State Board of Educa- 
tion such reports concerning their schools as were required from the 
school visitors concerning the public schools. 



437] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 25 

advantage of and the children neither attended school 
nor worked, but played in the streets.^* Yet the law was 
an improvement upon the law of 1882 (ch. 80), which 
required but twelve weeks or sixty full school days' at- 
tendance in any consecutive twelve months and applied 
only to those under fourteen. ^^ This law of 1885 was 
a good one and might have been enforced. It was 
spoiled, however, by an amendment in 1887 (ch. 145). 
Amendments. — In 1887 (ch. 145, sec. i) section two 
of the law of 1885 (ch. 90) was so amended that children 
under thirteen years of age who had attended school 
twenty-four weeks and children between thirteen and 
fourteen who had attended school twelve weeks of the 
preceding twelve months, and children over fourteen 
years of age, were exempt from the requirement (1885, 
ch. 90, sec. I ) to attend ''a public day school regularly and 
constantly while ... in session. ..." Section 
two (amending 1885, ^h. 90, sec. 3) provided a penalty 
of five dollars for each week's violation of the law, except 
when the child was destitute of clothing and the parent 
was unable to provide such clothing, or when the mental 
or physical condition of the child rendered its instruction 



^ "Among those who were found to be unlawfully absent from 
school and idle, there were some of American parentage nearly four- 
teen years of age who had never seen the inside of a school house. 
In nearly every town visited, and probably in nine-tenths of the 
towns of the State, there are children growing up in ignorance and 
idleness who have failed to secure the minimum schooling the law 
requires." — Report Agent State Board of Education, 1886, p. 38. 

^ "Families have been found having from two to four children 
between the ages of eight and fourteen years, to say nothing of those 
older and younger, who were born in this State or an adjoining 
State, but had never attended school or religious service of any kind, 
and could not read or write. Nothing but the fear of the penalty 
of the law, and in some cases the penalty itself, would affect such 
persons. In all the cases of prosecution for neglect to send children 
to school, the children were idle or had no steady employment." — 
Report State Board of Education, 1887, p. 46. 



26 American Economic Association [438 

inexpedient or impracticable. It also provided that cer- 
tificates of school attendance of children under fourteen 
should be furnished the employer by the parent (as pro- 
vided by the law of 1882, ch. 80, sec. 4), and that the 
employer should require such certificates and keep them 
on file. 

This law, grafted upon those of 1882 and 1885, was 
too complicated and fine drawn to be easily understood 
and remembered by parents and employers. The penal- 
ties against parents were not rigorously enforced. In 
1886 there were but seven prosecuted. In 1887 (ch. 23) 
the agents of the State Board of Education, appointed in 
1 886, were empowered to compel children to attend school. 
Before that they could dismiss the children from the fac- 
tory but could not compel them to go to school. They 
secured fair enforcement of the law, except the provision 
that children between thirteen and fourteen who had 
attended school twelve weeks of the preceding twelve 
months were exempt from the law while lawfully em- 
ployed. Upon this point the Report of the State Board 
of Education (1889, p. 115) says: 

"Children between 13 and 14 in manufacturing dis- 
tricts are usually found in the mills. The law requiring 
sixty days' attendance within the year previous to em- 
ployment is little regarded. Having reached 13 ybars 
of age, they are accepted, go to work, and are not dis- 
charged. They become 14 before the cases can be inves- 
tigated, and this last period of schooling is entirely lost. 
Moreover, while the law requires parents to send [the 
children] 120 days, the law relating to certificates re- 
quires that 60 days only shall be noted. The result is that 
children between 12 and 13, after having attended 60 
days, obtain work in the mills. The outcome, so far as 
children are concerned, is that there is little schooling 
between 12 and 14 and none after that period." 



439] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 27 

These laws were incorporated in the general statutes 
of 1888 (ch. 131, sees. 2102-2107). In 1895 (ch. 134) 
the exemption from the law^^ while at labor was removed, 
except for those over fourteen. By this change the child 
labor law was simplified and made more easy of enforce- 
ment ; but the temptation on the part of parents to falsify 
was increased, and the enforcement of the compulsory 
school attendance laws made more difficult. Certificates 
of attendance were no longer needed, only certificates 
of age.^^ 

- In 1899 (ch. 19) the law was further amended by 
providing that every child over seven and under sixteen 
years of age should attend a public day school regularly 
while it was in session, unless it was "elsewhere receiving 
regularly thorough instruction during said hours and 
terms in the studies taught in the public schools." Chil- 
dren over fourteen were not subject to these requirements 
while lawfully employed at labor. This law of 1899 has 
been quite effective and well enforced. ^^ It was incorpor- 
ated in the general statutes of 1902 (Title 12, ch. 130, 
sees. 21 16-21 18). 

The provisions of the act of 1882 (G. S. 1888, sec. 
2105), which prohibited the employment of any child 
under fourteen years of age who had resided in the 
United States nine months, unless such child had attended 
school at least twelve weeks or sixty full school days, had 
been superseded by the act of 1885 (ch. 90), which re- 

"^1887, ch. 145, sec. I (see p. Z^)- 

"Under law of 1895 (ch. 124). 

""Still many violations of it occur in the rural districts during 
the first and last school months of the school year. By the reports 
received for September, or in visiting the schools later, the agent 
finds that some children were at work some weeks after the school 
opened, while the reports for the last month of the school year 
show that some children left school before its close *to work'." — 
Report State Board of Education, 1902, p. 61. 



28 American Economic Association [440 

quired the attendance at school while in session of all 
children over eight and under sixteen years of age, yet 
it was allowed to remain on the statute books. It was 
repealed by the act of 1899 (ch. 41), which provides that 
the employing or authorizing the employing of ''any child 
under fourteen years of age during the hours while the 
school which such child should attend is in session," shall 
be punished by a fine of not more than twenty dollars for 
each week's employment. 

This law is the same in the revision of 1902 (sec. 
21 19). Here at last we have a law that is short, plain, 
and easy of enforcement. The minimum age law of 1895 
(ch. 124) refers only to the children in certain enumer- 
ated industries; this includes the children in all occupa- 
tions during school hours. It recognizes the right of the 
child to an education as being superior to the pecuniary 
needs, or the greed, of its parents. Its only use, however, 
is to strengthen chapter nineteen (1899), which requires 
parents of children "over seven and under sixteen" to 
send them to school "regularly during the hours and 
terms" the school is in session. 

Enforcement. — In Connecticut the enforcement of the 
child labor laws and the school attendance laws devolves 
upon the same officers, the agents of the State Board of 
Education. It is true the school attendance laws provide 
also for their enforcement by the local school officers, but 
with few exceptions the work is thrown upon the state 
agents. The teachers report all cases of absence to them 
each month and they look up all bad cases. They are very 
diligent and earnest in their efforts to keep every child 
under fourteen years of age in school, and they succeed 
fairly well. More complete enforcement is prevented by 
three causes : 

(i) There is a "low standard in the public mind of 
what regular attendance is", and hence "the thorough 



44 1] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 29 

moral support of the entire community" in the enforce- 
ment of these laws is lacking. Then, the ignorance, in- 
difference, and sometimes poverty, of parents (largely 
foreign) who are anxious to keep their children out of 
school to assist in the home, complicate matters. 

(2) There is often a lack of co-operation by local 
officers. ^'Prosecuting officers will not bring suit against 
delinquent and negligent employers and parents; judges 
will not convict when the evidence is clear. This has 
gone so far that within the past year a parent who pleaded 
guilty was acquitted by a justice."^^ 

(3) The number of enforcing agents often has been 
inadequate. One agent, during the busy months after 
the opening of the schools in 1905, was attempting to 
enforce the law in a district which, as he described it to 
the writer, was approximately fifty miles square, covered 
three counties, had forty towns, seven hundred school 
teachers and thirty thousand school children. To enforce 
the laws he must examine five hundred teachers' reports 
each month, see that all of the thirty thousand children, 
scattered over the 2500 square miles of territory, are in 
school, and inspect the condition of several hundred chil- 
dren between fourteen and sixteen years of age in the 
largest cotton mill district in the State. It is not sur- 
prising that he should be able to relate that once, in an 
out of the way place in the woods, he found a family of 
children of school age who had not been to school for 
three years.^^ 

(b) Child Labor Laws. 
The Law of 1886. — In 1855 the prohibitory age limit 
for the employment of child labor in manufacturing and 
mechanical establishments was fixed at nine years. In 



^^ Report State Board of Education, 1904, p. 6. 
^^ The above agent said to the writer : *1 could make a prosecution 
every day if I had time to get to them. There are that many cases 



3© American Economic Association [442 

1856 (ch. 39) it was raised to ten years. The law was 
never enforced and the careless manner in which it was 
omitted from the revision of 1875 shows the general lack 
of interest in it. Yet there was great need for such a law. 
The Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 1874 
(p. 61) says: 

''Children eight years of age have been known to ap- 
pear at their factory work in the early morning with their 
eyes scarcely opened through want of sufficient sleep for 
their health and comfort." 

In the same year the Agent of the State Board of Educa- 
tion says:^^ 

''Only a few manufacturers intend to employ children 
under ten years of age, but there are a few mills where 
children under eight years of age may be found at work." 

In 1885 Commissioner Hadley says :^^ 

"Some people . . . find it hard to believe that chil- 
dren under ten years of age are thus employed in fac- 
tories. Unfortunately, it is true that they are." (p. 50.) 

"... There are many mills, especially among the 
less important ones, where it has been impossible to. stop 
or even detect them." (p. 49.) 

"... The French Canadian, in a great many 
instances, . . . urges and even insists upon the em- 
ployment of the family as a whole, down to the very 
youngest children who can be of possible service." (p. 

48.) 

Many similar cases might be given. Such conditions 
brought a demand for reform. In the agitation for a 
new law the Knights of Labor were quite prominent. 
Several bills on the subject were introduced. The State 
Board of Education favored twelve years as a minimum 

that need to be prosecuted. There are many cases reported that I 
have not time to look up." 

^ Report State Board of Education, 1874, p. 17. 

^Report Conn. Bureau Labor Statistics. 



443] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 31 

age for employment, while the Knights of Labor held 
out for fourteen years. Thirteen years was finally fixed 
upon as a compromise. On the final passage of the bill 
there were but three votes against it in the Senate and 
but one in the House. 

The act of 1886 (ch. 124, sec. i) provides that, 

''No child under thirteen years of age shall be em- 
ployed in any mechanical, mercantile or manufacturing 
establishment." 

Section two fixes a penalty of sixty dollars for each 
week's violation by the employer. He is exempt, how- 
ever, if at the time of employment he has on file the cer- 
tificate of a town clerk or the child's teacher that such 
child is more than thirteen years of age, or a like certifi- 
cate of the parent or guardian, when there is no record 
of the child's age in the ofiice of the town clerk and such 
child has not attended school in this State. The signing 
of a false certificate makes the parent liable to a fine of not 
more than sixty dollars. 

Under section three, it is the duty of the State Board 
of Education and the local school officers of the towns 
to enforce the act, and the State Board of Education may 
appoint enforcing agents. 

This act had several weak points, (i) In applying 
only to certain enumerated industries it left many chil- 
dren outside the pale of its protection. It did not apply 
to those employed in farming, or in professional, personal 
or domestic service.^^ Then the boundaries of these 
enumerated industries are very vague. "The distinctions 
which are called for are often arbitrary and such as can 

^"It seems to reach a boy who sells or delivers newspapers for a 
news dealer or a newspaper publisher, but not one who sells news- 
papers on his own account. Does it reach a telegraph messenger 
boy, or a lawyer's office boy, or a barber's boy, or a livery-stable 
boy, or one who drives a team, etc.?" — Report State Board of 
Education, 1887, p. 11. 



32 American Economic Association [444 

easily be evaded." The making of them has always trou- 
bled the agents. (2) The enforcing agents provided for 
by the act could turn the children out of the factory into 
the street, but had no authority to compel their attend- 
ance at school. The one agent whose duty it was to 
enforce the school attendance laws could not look after 
all these cases. This defect was remedied in i887( ch. 
22,), and the agents were empowered to compel the chil- 
dren to attend school. (3) As the law did not require 
that certificates be given by the parents or that they be 
required or kept by the employer, the latter followed his 
own inclination in the matter. Some required certificates, 
others did not. The provision which accepts "the certi- 
ficate of the parent or guardian, where there is no record 
of the child's age in the office of the town clerk and such 
child has not attended school in this State," applied, in 
practice, mainly to the French Canadians. This and a 
similar provision in the law of 1887 (ch. 62), which 
accepted the certificate of a minor "made by him," are 
two of the greatest travesties on law found in the numer- 
ous loose child labor acts of Connecticut. The Report 
of the State Board of Education in 1888 (p. 38) says: 

*' . . . The rapacity of the parents has impelled 
them to false statements concerning the ages of their 
children. The reports indicate extensive, deliberate and 
unqualified lying for the sole purpose of securing the 
money which their children can earn. It is difficult and 
generally impossible to fix this falsification by evidence 
admissable in court. The result is that children are 
employed who ought not to be employed, and are out of 
school when they ought to be in school."^* 

One of the present agents of the State Board of Edu- 
^*''Many of these children are of small stature, and it is very 
difficult for employers or school officers to determine their ages. 
When questioned, these children and their parents always say they 
are thirteen or more, while appearances frequently indicate the con- 
trary. The oath of the parent respecting the age of the child is 



445] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 33 

cation related to the writer that when parents gave certi- 
ficates he called out fifteen children in one mill. All had 
certificates. He asked the manager how many of them 
he thought were as old as they claimed to be. He 

answered, ''Not a d d one of them. My orders are 

to keep the mill running." 

The six agents appointed by the State Board of Educa- 
tion to enforce the act soon discovered that there was no 
"active and spontaneous interest" in the law, and that 
even those who had been active in securing its passage 
offered no assistance in its execution. Employers offered 
no opposition to the enforcement of the law and generally 
discharged all children under thirteen. ''Of the estab- 
lishments visited thirty-one are reported as favoring the 
law and eight as decidedly against it."^^ Those who 
favored the law held that for physical reasons children 
under thirteen ought not to work, and that they should 
be in school regularly and constantly; that their labor is 
not profitable ; and that it is not necessary to their acqui- 
sition of skill. Those who opposed the law claimed that 
early employment is necessary to secure regularity and 
skill, and that families deprived of their children's support 
had become charges on the town. They claimed also that 
much of their work could be done better by young chil- 
dren than by older ones; that families would not locate 
near their factories unless these young children were 
employed ; that this cheap labor was necessary to compe- 
tition with other States; that more families would now 
be necessary to carry on the work, and this would require 
more tenements and thus would increase the cost of the 
product. 



accepted, in the absence of proof to the contrary, which is difficult 
and often impossible to obtain."— Report Conn. Bureau Labor Sta- 
tistics, 1889, p. 55. 
''Report State Board of Education, 1887, p. 117. 



34 American Economic Association [446 

As usual the parents, through their rapacity and false 
statements, offered the chief obstacle to the enforcement 
of the law.^^ Opposition came also from local authorities 
who feared that families might come upon the town for 
support. 

The Report of the State Board of Education for 1887 
(p. 54) says: 

'' . . . During the twelve months ending July i, 
[1887] there were employed, chiefly in manufacturing 
and mercantile establishments of the State, at least 2,600 
children under fourteen years of age." 

They were distributed as follows : 

Per cent. 

Age. of total. Number. 

8 2.2 57 

9 37 96 

ID II.4 296 

II 16.3 423 

12 28.8 748 

13 37-6 979 

By industries they were distributed approximately as 

follows :^^ 

Cotton factories 1200 

Woolen factories 400 

Silk factories 100 

Metal goods 400 

Other factories 250 

Stores 250 

It was estimated that from 1000 to 1200 families would 

be affected by the throwing out of employment of the 

1600 children under thirteen years of age who worked 

some part of the previous year.^^ 

^"They will impose upon the manufacturer, resort to every sub- 
terfuge to conceal the age of their children and in every way in 
their power avoid complying with the requirements of this, and of 
the school law, in order to pocket the money results of the children's 
work."— Report State Board of Education, 1887, p. 121. 

"' Report State Board of Education, 1887, p. 55- 

'^/^zf/., p. 64. 



447] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 35 

As no thorough canvass of the State had been made at 
the time these figures were pubHshed they must be taken 
as an optimistic approximation. I offer them in the ab- 
sence of any others. 

The law of 1886 was very effective, and in 1894 only 
six cases were found of children under thirteen, illegally 
employed. Its economic effects will be discussed later. 

The Amendment of i8p^. — The law of 1886, as has 
been noted, was the result of a compromise between the 
State Board of Education and the Knights of Labor. 
After its passage the labor unions did not cease their 
efforts to raise the age limit to fourteen years, and in 
the legislature of 1892-93 a bill (H. B. 280) was intro- 
duced to that effect. At the hearing before the Committee 
on Labor Giles Potter, agent of the State Board of 
Education, said he did not think the measure would be 
beneficial. ^^ The bill was adversely reported and rejected. 

The change, however, was generally approved. In 
1893 t^^ Bureau of Labor Statistics sent letters to manu- 
facturers, workmen, school superintendents and teachers, 
and physicians, asking their views on the proposed 
change. The large majority of those replying heartily 
favored the proposed increase of the age limit, and not 
a few favored raising it to even fifteen or sixteen years. ^^ 
Of the seventy-one manufacturers, thirty-nine desired an 
increase in the age limit, twenty-six opposed a change, 
and six were between these two groups. Of the thirty- 
six superintendents and teachers, twenty-nine favored 
and seven opposed the change. Of the twenty-one work- 
men, eighteen favored the proposition. Only five of 
thirty-one physicians opposed the change.^^ 

^' Report Conn. Bureau Labor Statistics, 1892-93. 
^ Ibid., 1893, p. 192. 

^As those who favored the change would be most likely to 
answer, these opinions must be accepted with allowances. 



S6 American Economic Association [448 

The change was supported for the following reasons: 

1. It would result in a benefit to the child physically 
and intellectually. 

2. It would increase the demand for adult labor. 

3. In these two ways it would result in a benefit to the 
State and to posterity. 

In opposition the reasons advanced were : 

1. It would work a hardship on invalid and needy 
parents. 

2. It is socialistic. 

3. It is an infringement of the rights of parent and 
child. 

4. It would foster idleness. 

The necessity of the manufacturer for cheap labor was 
seldom advanced. They had learned by experience that 
older and more intelligent labor is as economical as that 
of young children. 

We need consider but two of the above objections, the 
first and the third. In answer to the first it may be said 
that the right of a child to an education and to a normal 
moral and physical development is not dependent upon 
the economic condition of its parents and should not 
be influenced by it. The possible present advantage of a 
few is not to be opposed to the positive future welfare of 
all. "It is better for the State to bear a small burden 
now than a larger burden later." The third objection 
embraces (i) the rights of the State, (2) the rights of 
the parent, and (3) the rights of the child. Any society 
must claim the right of self-defense. Its interests must 
be held paramount to the interests of any one of its mem- 
bers. The rights of any individual member cease to be 
rights when their further exercise will work an injury 
to the society as a whole. "The State's solicitude for the 
children, far from being an interference with rights, is a 



449] Labor Legislation of Connecticut :^'j 

a championship of the rights of the children by the only 
power capable of extending protection. "^^ 

In 1895 a bill (H. B. 414) was passed raising the age 
for employment from thirteen to fourteen years (ch. 
118). This amendment to the law of 1886 was supported 
vigorously by the Legislative Committee of the Connec- 
ticut Branch of the American Federation of Labor, and 
by the Secretary of the State Board of Education. It 
was opposed by Representative Talcott, of Vernon, who 
was a manufacturer and an employer of children. The 
labor unions in their demands were probably prompted 
as much by a desire to avoid competition with child labor 
as by an interest in the physical and mental development 
of the children. 

The law was much needed in support of education. 
Over fifty per cent, of the children left school before 
finishing the grammar grades. In manufacturing com- 
munities the percentage rose to "sixty, seventy, eighty, 
ninety and even one hundred per cent. ..." Very 
many of them left school for the factory as soon as the 
law would permit. ^^ 

An investigation in nine manufacturing cities and bor- 
oughs of the State, made by the Bureau of Labor Sta- 
tistics in 1895, showed the following conditions :^* 



^ Report Conn, Bureau Labor Statistics, 1894, p. 290. 

*^ "A study of the summary shows that of the twenty-six schools 
reporting for 1890 only six report the average age of graduation to 
be less than fourteen years. For 1891 thirty-six schools reported, 
and in twenty-seven of them the average age was more than four- 
teen. It was also over fourteen in forty of the forty-seven schools 
reporting for 1892, in forty-eight of the fifty-eight reporting for 
1893, and in fifty-eight of the seventy-four reporting for 1894." — 
Report Conn. Bureau Labor Statistics, 1894, p. 276. 

** Report Conn. Bureau Labor Statistics, 1895, p. 216. 



38 American Economic Association [450 

Percentage of Children Percentage leaving 
not completing Gram- school at thirteen 
mer School years of age 

Hartford 44.00 32.00 

New Haven 58.00 32.00 

Norwich 70.00 48.00 

New London 20.00 17.00 

Bridgeport 41.00 

Killingly 45.00 45.00 

Windham 58.00 62.00 

Middletown 50.00 10.00 

Rockville 70.00 65.00 

The defects noted in the law of 1886 in regard to its 
appHcation only to children employed in the enumerated 
industries, and to its acceptance of the parent's certificate 
of the child's age, are the same in its amendment of 1895. 
The acts of 1901 (ch. no), 1903 (ch. 75) and 1905 (ch. 
115) are aimed at the defect in regard to certificates. 
The enforcement and effects of the law of 1895 will be 
discussed in connection with these acts. 

Age-Certificate Laws. — Under the law of 1886 (ch. 
124) an employer was exempt from punishment for em- 
ploying a child under thirteen years of age if he had on 
file a certificate of age by the town clerk, the child's 
teacher, or by the parent when there was no record of the 
child's age in the office of the town clerk and it had not 
attended school in the State. There was a fine of sixty 
dollars for false statement by the parent as to the child's 
age. The law is the same in 1895 (ch. 118), except that 
the age is fourteen. As has already been noted, this 
weakness as to certificates caused the greatest trouble in 
trying to enforce these laws. As no certificates were 
required by the law the only proof that the employer or 
enforcing agent had of the child's age, when it was for- 
eign born and had not attended school here, was the 
statement of the parent. This must be accepted. Pa- 
rents did not hesitate to misrepresent the ages of their 



45 1] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 39 

children in order to get them into the factory.^^ Thus, 
in spite of the minimum age law, the law requiring all 
under fourteen to attend school, and the earnest efforts 
of the enforcing agents, often the law was defeated. In 
1901 (ch. no) there was an attempt to remedy this. 
This law provides that every employer of a child under 
sixteen years of age 

"shall obtain a certificate showing that the child is over 
fourteen years of age. Such certificate shall be signed 
by the registrar of births, marriages, and deaths, or the 
town clerk of the town where there is a public record of 
the birth of the child, or by a teacher of the school where 
the child last attended, or by the person having custody 
of the register of said school. If the child was not bom 
in the United States and has not attended school in this 
State, one of the parents or the guardian of the child 
shall have the date of the birth of the child recorded by 
the registrar of births, marriages, and deaths, or the town 
clerk where such parent or guardian resides." 

The parent must take oath as to the date and place of birth 
of the child and produce any family record, passport, or 
other paper showing its age or the date of its birth. 
There is a fine of a hundred dollars for failure of the 
employer to have, keep on file, and show to the agents of 
the State Board of Education or the local school board 



^ "That there are children not fourteen years old working in the 
mills no one who has seen them will question, but a certificate of 
age has been given by the parent stating that the child is over four- 
teen." — Report State Board of Education, 1899, p. 47. 

"There is no doubt that the law giving parents the right to issue 
certificates of age, in order that the children between fourteen and 
sixteen may be employed, is knowingly and wilfully violated. . . . 
There are many instances where a child said to be fourteen years 
old is working on a parent's certificate. ... In a case just inves- 
tigated the parents of the boy whose age was in question claimed 
that he was fourteen and born in Canada; continued investigation 
revealed that he was born in Rhode Island and a copy of the 
records showed that he was but eleven years old." — Report State 
Board of Education, 1901, p. 62. 



40 American Economic Association [452 

these certificates and a list of names of the children em- 
ployed. The penalty for employment of a child without 
a certificate is sixty dollars for each week, and for false 
statement by the parent concerning the age of a child 
twenty dollars. 

In practice this law had two weaknesses : ( i ) the care- 
less manner in which registrars and town clerks often 
recorded the births of foreign born children without suf- 
ficient documentary or other evidence, and then granted 
them age certificates; and (2) the ease with which the 
parents of foreign born children who had not attended 
school here could defeat the purpose of the law by false 
statements. Town clerks were very careless. In a case 
investigated by the writer the register of the town clerk 
showed that two brothers were born in the same year and 
on the same day of the month. Both were granted certi- 
ficates, the record being on the same page, and showing 
the names of the father and mother to be the same in 
each case. Investigation showed that one boy was four- 
teen and the other sixteen years old. Foreigners, the 
births of whose children were not recorded, sometimes 
claimed that the age as found in the school register was 
wrongly given by the child (too often the case) or 
wrongly recorded by the teacher, and that the child was 
older; or, if it had not attended school, they took oath 
before the registrar that the child was older than, actu- 
ally, it was. There was no proof to the contrary and the 
certificate must be granted. Employers sometimes ac- 
cepted the statement of the parent that the child was over 
sixteen, and incurred no risk, for there was no legal proof 
of the child's age except the statement of the parent. ^^ 
But in spite of its weaknesses and of these deceptive 
violations, the law of 1901 was very beneficial, and was 

** Report State Board of Education, 1901, p. 56 ; 1903, P- 64. 



453] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 41 

generally quite well enforced. Employers usually sup- 
ported the law and tried to obey it. Some of them had 
required certificates under the old law, which was not 
compulsory. Others had not kept certificates under the 
old law and were slow to obey the new one. In 1904 
one of the enforcing agents reported that of the 1,690 
children between fourteen and sixteen years of age em- 
ployed in his district, 104 were employed without certifi- 
cates of age.^'^ This district is in the eastern part of the 
State, where most of the cotton mills are situated. The 
operatives here are largely French Canadians, the people 
who violate the law most frequently. 

The law of 1901 was also evaded by families who 
brought their children from other States into Connecticut 
to work. Often there was no record of the birth, and the 
town clerks and registrars too frequently granted cer- 
tificates on the statements made by the parents, without 
investigating the cases. It was thought that the State 
Board of Education would do this work more carefully, 
so, in 1903 (ch. 75), a law was passed which provides 
that in cases of unrecorded dates of births of children 
who were born in the United States but who have not 
attended school in this State, and in cases where the 
record of the date of birth on the school register one year 
is inconsistent with the record of another year, the State 
Board of Education may investigate ''and, if it appears 
that the child is over fourteen years of age, may grant 
a certificate." This was power well placed and the law 
has been effective of much good, but as it did not repeal 
the earlier provision or make this the sole way of securing 
such certificates it did not stop misrepresentation in all 
cases. The law is still in force. 

In 1905 (ch. 115) Connecticut took another step in 

"Ibid., 1904, p. 61. 



42 American Economic Association [454 

her favorite "cut and try" method of legislation. The 
loop hole in the law of 1901 (G. S. 1902, sec. 4705) 
which allowed the parent or guardian of a child not born 
in the United States and who had not attended school 
in this State to have the date of its birth recorded by the 
registrar of births or the town clerk, was stopped by the 
following amendment : 

'If a child was not bom in the United States the State 
Board of Education may investigate and, if it appears 
that said child is over fourteen years of age, may grant a 
certificate accordingly." 

Enforcement. — From the defects already noted in the 
certificate laws of 1901 and 1903, it is evident that under 
such laws the complete prohibition of child labor has been 
impossible. Besides the deceptions of the parents in se- 
curing certificates, and, in cases, of mutilating certificates, 
passports, etc., for deceptive purposes, there are still a few 
employers who violate the law by employing children ille- 
gally. In one of the finest bakeries in the State the writer 
found six school girls tying up loaves of bread. Three 
of these were under fourteen, and three between fourteen 
and sixteen years of age. They worked an hour and a 
half each afternoon after school. None of them had cer- 
tificates and hence all were employed illegally. Their 
employer was ignorant of the law, and was much sur- 
prised when he was informed that he was employing the 
children illegally. He at once dismissed the three who 
were under fourteen and had the other three secure cer- 
tificates. While this was a case of ignorant violation by 
a worthy employer, it shows that the law may still be 
violated for weeks without the State's agents ever know- 
ing of it. Then some employers, though reasonably 
careful not to employ children under fourteen, are care- 
less about keeping on file a certificate for each child. Often 
when a child leaves a factory it takes its certificate, and 



455] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 43 

when it returns later it is employed without a certificate 
being placed on file. 

Such cases as the foregoing are of minor importance. 
What is more grave is the fact that there is evidence that 
the minimum age law, in cases, is being wilfully violated 
with the knowledge and tacit consent of those whose duty 
it is to enforce it. When the minimum age for employ- 
ment was fixed at thirteen years in 1886, the State Board 
of Education, it will be remembered, favored and worked 
for twelve years as the minimum. They were defeated 
by the Knights of Labor. Mr. Giles Potter, who was 
then the sole agent of the State Board of Education and 
who advocated the twelve-year limit, said to the writer 
recently : 

''I and others have tried to get a law permitting the 
employment of children of twelve when the schools are 
not in session, but the unions have always opposed it and 
we have never been able to pass such a law." 

In regard to one of these bills the report of the legis- 
lative committee of the Connecticut Branch of the Amer- 
ican Federation of Labor, 1899, says: 

Senate Bill Number 9, "to the effect that children over 
twelve and under fourteen years of age may be employed 
in factories during school vacations, was introduced by 
Senator Hall, of Willington,*^ and advocated by him. 
. . . The hearing on this bill was an interesting one 
on account of the peculiar stand taken by an agent of the 
State Board of Education, Mr. Giles Potter, of New 
Haven, who sided with the manufacturers in advocating 
the bill and saying that the children would be safe in the 
factories, also that many of them would be saved from 
drowning during the summer vacation if the bill was 
passed."*^ 



^'In 1897 Senator Hall introduced a similar bill (H. B. 444). 
"^ See, also, Report State Board of Education, 1881, p. 22 ; Report 
Conn. Bureau Labor Statistics, 1893, p. 256. 



44 American Economic Association [456 

Mr. C. N. Hall, an agent of the State Board of Educa- 
tion, in his report to the Secretary of the Board in 1904, 
advocates the employment of children between twelve and 
fourteen years of age during the summer vacation, and 
concludes by saying : 

"Moreover, since such employment will inevitably be 
given during the two months when factories are not 
visited, it were better to be legalized than to be given 
illegally."^^ 

During my investigation, I accompanied another of the 
agents on his tour of inspection in one of the large cotton 
factories of Putnam. We examined the children and the 
certificates on file and found nothing wrong. Six weeks 
later I went through the same factory and found two 
small girls working at the spinning frames. One of these 
said she was twelve years old and was working in her 
mother's place, the other that she was thirteen and was 
helping her sister. The latter was French and could not 
talk English or write her name. The particulars were 
reported to the agent and to the Secretary of the State 
Board of Education. The agent informed the writer, 
later, that he was going to let the case rest till after vaca- 
tion and see whether they would continue working after 
school opened. 

Here are three agents directly opposed, in this respect, 
to the law they are supposed to enforce. Is it strange that 
"employment will inevitably be given during the two 
months when factories are not visited," or that they are 
not visited during these two months ? And is it a matter 
for wonder that, 

"By the reports received for September, or in visiting the 
schools later the agent finds that some children were at 
work some weeks after the school opened, while the re- 

'" Report State Board of Education, 1904, p. (^7- 



457] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 45 

ports for the last month of the school year show that 
some children left school before its close to work" ?^^ 

But with these exceptions this law is perhaps as well 
enforced as any law on our statute books that is so diffi- 
cult of enforcement and involves as great numbers and 
as diverse interests. And with these exceptions the agents 
seem to be very diligent and painstaking to secure a rigid 
enforcement. 

(c) Exhibiting Children. 
In 1884 (ch. 99) it was enacted that, 

''Any person having care, custody or control of any 
child under the age of twelve years, who shall exhibit, 
use . . or dispose of any such child . . . for the 
. . . purpose of rope or wire walking, dancing, skating, 
begging, or peddling, or as a gymnast, contortionist, 
rider or acrobat ... or for or in any obscene, inde- 
cent, or immoral purpose, exhibition, or practice; or for 
or in any business, exhibition or vocation injurious to the 
health or dangerous to the life or limb of any such child ; 
. . . shall be fined not more than two hundred and fifty 
dollars, or suffer imprisonment . . . not less than 
thirty days or more than one year, or both such fine and 
imprisonment." 

The revision of 1888 (Title 19, ch. 99, sec. 141 7) adds 
bicycling to the prohibited vocations, and this is the pres- 
ent law (1902, G. S. sec. 1163). The act designates no 
special person to enforce its provisions, and little use has 
ever been made of it. The agents of the State Board of 
Education have enforced it where cases of its violation 
have come to their notice. There have been but few 
prosecutions under it, though doubtless it has been vio- 
lated often. 

(d) Operating Elevators. 

Until 1893 there was no provision for the inspection 
of elevators, except in manufacturing establishments. 



Report State Board of Education, 1902, p. 61. 



46 American Economic Association [458 

Before this many of them were in a dilapidated and un- 
safe condition, few of them had safety appHances, and 
accidents were frequent from their careless operation. In 
the legislature of 1893 organized labor supported a bill 
(H. B. 23) prohibiting the employment of persons under 
twenty-one years of age to operate elevators. This high 
age limit was objected to and sixteen years was the age 
named in the bill that passed (ch. 59). The penalty for 
violation is "a fine of not less than five dollars nor more 
than twenty-five dollars for each offense." There is no 
provision made for the enforcement of the law, but fre- 
quent violations are prevented by the care of the agents 
of the State Board of Education. The law is the same in 
the revision of 1902, except that the minimum penalty 
is omitted. 

(e) Evening Schools. 
Because of the loop hole in the law of 1882 (ch. 80), 
which exempted from the requirement to attend school 
sixty days of the twelve months preceding the month of 
their employment those children who had not resided in 
the United States nine months, and because of the low age 
limit (thirteen) fixed by the law of 1886 (ch. 124), it 
was long possible for children coming from without the 
State to be legally employed in the factories, without 
having the least education. That this weakness in the 
law was taken advantage of is evident from the following : 

"For in spite of the law requiring children to be sent 
to school twelve weeks in each year, some are employed 
in such establishments who have no knowledge whatever 
of letters. They commenced work on their arrival in 
this country, and if they have attended school at all, the 
period was so short that they have not learned enough to 
be of any practical use to them, or if they have resided 
longer in the United States, they have somehow evaded 
the law."^2 



" Report State Board of Education, 1884, p. 39- 



459] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 47 

The following shows that these conditions were not 
only bad but common: 

'Tn fifty towns and in 157 establishments were found 
1,514 children between 14 and 16 years of age. There 
are about 150 more establishments where children of 
these years are employed, and if the same ratio holds 
there are 3,000 children between 14 and 16 years of age 
employed in factories. ^^ Of the 1,514 children employed 
177, or twelve per cent., cannot read or write. Many 
more cannot read or write legibly. "^^ 

Law of i8p^. — In the legislature of 1886 a bill (H. B. 
136) was introduced prohibiting the employment, in any 
mechanical, mercantile, or manufacturing establishment, 
of children between fourteen and sixteen years of age, 
who could not read and write, and making it the duty of 
the State Board of Education to enforce the proposed law.. 
Such a law was much needed, and had it been passed and 
enforced would have been productive of much good. But 
the bill was unfavorably reported by the Committee on 
Labor and was rejected.- In 1893 a halfway measure was 
passed to patch up these gaps in the education laws. It 
provides (ch. 227, sec. 3) that, 

"No person over fourteen and under sixteen years of 
age, who cannot read and write, shall be employed in any 
manufacturing, mercantile, or mechanical occupation in 
any town where evening schools are established under 
the provisions of the preceding sections, unless he can 
produce, every school month of twenty days, a certificate 
from the teacher of an evening school established under 
this act, showing that he has attended such school twenty 
consecutive evenings in the current school month and is a 
regular attendant." 

There is a penalty of fifty dollars for the employment 
of a child contrary to the provisions of the act, but there is 



^ U. S. Census of 1900 shows that in 1890 there were 3,085. 
" Report State Board of Education, 1889, p. 45. 



48 American Economic Association [460 

no provision made for its enforcement. In 1895 it was 
replaced by a law (ch. 210, sec. 3) which required only 
eighteen consecutive evenings attendance in the current 
school month, but made it the duty of the State Board of 
Education to enforce its provisions. The law is the sam^ 
in the revision of 1902 (sec. 2147). 

This act was (and is) very defective. It applied only 
to towns where evening schools were established, and as 
these were established only in a few of the towns, any 
child could evade it by seeking employment in a town 
where there was no evening school. This was not neces- 
sary, however, for there was never any attempt to enforce 
the act.^^ • The same is true of it to-day. The present 
Secretary of the State Board of Education says he is not 
in sympathy with evening schools, supported by the pub- 
lic for the free education of foreign young people, who 
should pay for their own education ; and the senior agent 
of the Board says : 

''This law is practically a dead letter. We do not do 
much with it." 

In a communication to the writer the Secretary of the 
State Board of Education says : 

"For several years employers were required to obtain 
and exhibit upon request of agents, legal certificates of 
attendance at evening schools. Frequently factories were 
inspected for the purpose of ascertaining whether chil- 
dren between fourteen and sixteen who ought to attend 
evening schools were employed. Very few were found." 

The Secretary's own reports refute this last statement. 
They show that for the five years, 1893- 1897, 1,182 
children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years 
who were unable to read English, were found employed 
in the f actor ies.^^ 



^ Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1900, p. 278. 

" Reports State Board of Education, 1896, p. 21 ; 1904, p. 72. 



461' 



Labor Legislation of Connecticut 



49 



Ever since the advent of the French Canadians at the 
close of the Civil War, Connecticut has had in the ignor- 
ant children of her foreign population a difficult educa- 
tional problem. Never, before 1905, have her laws been 
adequate to deal with this problem. For all these years 
there have been large numbers of ignorant children be- 
tween fourteen and sixteen years of age in her factories. 
Many of them had not the minimum of an education, 
some of them could not write their own names. They 
were too old to be reached by the compulsory school law. 
and so were left to grow up in ignorance. 

The following figures show the number of these em- 
ployed each year from 1889 to 1903, and the number 
unable to read English. ^^ The percentages were com- 
puted by the writer : 



CHILDREN FROM FOURTEEN TO SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE 



Year 


Number Employed 


Unable to Read English 


Number 


Per cent. 


1889 
1890 
1891 
1892 
1893 
1894 
1895 
1896 
1897 
1898 
1899 
1900 
1 901 
1902 
1903 


1,514 
2,222 
3,406 

5,483 
4,608 
2,620 
2,968 
2,716 
3.303 
3,212 
3,538 
3,358 
4,162 
5,660 
5,372 


177 
231 
107 
188 
129 
205 
360 
102 
386 
87 
303 
322 
140 
320 
178 


II. 7 

10.4 
3-1 
3-4 
2.8 
7.8 

12. 1 
3-8 

II. 7 
2.7 
8.5 
9.6 
3-4 


• 


53,244 


3,235 


6.1 



°^ Reports State Board of Education, 1896, p. 21 ; 1904, p. 72. 
^^The great variation in the percentages from one year to another 
shows a lack of any relation between the number found employed 



5© American Economic Association [462 

Law of ipoj. — In 1893, as we have seen, there was a 
weak attempt to deal with this question by passing a de- 
ficient act requiring those between fourteen and sixteen 
who could not read and write to attend evening schools, 
if employed in towns where there were such schools. As 
has been noted, the law has never been enforced. In 1903 
(ch. 29) another law was passed. It provides that when- 
ever the local school officers shall decide by vote that any 
child between fourteen and sixteen years of age has not 
sufficient schooling to warrant its leaving school to work, 
it must attend school regularly while in session until the 
school officers grant a leaving certificate stating that its 
education is satisfactory, or until it becomes sixteen years 
of age. There is a penalty of five dollars for each week's 
violation. 

The act was amended in 1905 by chapter 36, which 
gives the State Board of Education co-ordinate power 
with the local school officers under the act. In neither 
case is the act mandatory. It leaves the question of what 
constitutes "sufficient schooling" to the judgment of the 

and the number found unable to read English, and makes the accu- 
racy of the above statistics seem extremely doubtful. 

In his message to the legislature in 1887 Governor Lounsbury 
said : "These are figures and the facts, but no report of your able 
school board, no statistics of a census, could show the frightful 
amount of illiteracy that is existing all over the State. Within the 
last ten years thousands of boys and girls have passed beyond the 
limit of their school life, have gone out into the world, and to-day 
they are virtually unable to read and write. . . . They learned all 
that they had time to learn, their letters, to read a few short sen- 
tences, to write their names; but any ordinary printed book is to 
them a sealed mystery, and any document to which they may sign 
their names is as far beyond their ability to decipher as though it 
were written in Sanscrit. For this ignorance, which must darken 
and sadden all their lives, this commonwealth is to blame, for it was 
the inevitable result of faulty legislation and of inefficiency in 
enforcing that legislation which was good." 



463] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 51 

officers. While there may be reason for allowing some 
discretionary power in the case of children over fourteen 
years of age, the act is weak in this respect. For example, 
if the school board in one town chooses to exercise its 
full powers and sets a high standard, and the board in 
another town chooses to follow its prerogative and do 
nothing under the law, it is easy to see the probable 
result. Those who wish to evade the law will simply 
change their residence from the former town to the latter 
one. 

This law in its application reaches mainly the foreign 
bom children. Connecticut requires that her own native 
born children attend school until they are fourteen. This 
she deems necessary for their welfare and for that of the 
State. Why should she set a lower standard for foreign 
born children who are eventually to become her citizens? 
This premium on ignorance has had its evil results. That 
it is still having them is evident from the large numbers 
of these ignorant foreign children who are now flocking 
to the State. The law should be made mandatory and 
there should be some fixed standard to which all must 
attain, with possibly the reservation to the officers of 
discretionary power in exceptional cases. 

So far but few of the local school boards have done 
anything under this act. Where they have it has been 
merely to require a higher standard of those in the 
schools, and the new rule has not been applied to those 
who had already left school to work, or those who 
had never been in the schools. They have thus missed 
those who need the schooling most, the foreign born 
children in the factories. It is still too soon after 
the approval of the amendment of 1905 to say what 
action the State Board of Education is going to take 
under it. Two of their agents have informed the writer 



52 American Economic Association [464 

that they are doing nothing about the matter. ^^ How- 
ever, the only searching investigation that has ever been 
made of the child labor conditions in a factory town of 
Connecticut was made at Middletown, in 1906, tmder the 
direction of the State Board of Education and in pursu- 
ance of the powers given them by this law. Because of 
the uniqueness and thoroughness of this investigation, 
and because of the insight it gives into certain conditions 
that seem to be prevalent in the State, the writer had 
prepared for this study a special report of it. 

The investigation was made by Mr. W. B. Ferguson,^^ 
who was Superintendent of Schools at Middletown, and 
who was appointed by the State Board of Education to 
enforce the law in that district. In the following para- 
graphs the important parts of his report are quoted in 
full: 

The Middletown Investigation. 
*Tn order that the reader may clearly understand the 
problem of school attendance that was presented in this 
city and the method that has been followed in solving it, 
it will be necessary to place before him briefly the social 
and industrial conditions existing here." 

"Size and Character of the Population. 

"In 1900, the city of Middletown had a population of 
9859. Its present population is about 11,000, the follow- 
ing nationalities being represented and in about the fol- 
lowing order as regards numbers : English, Irish, Italian, 
German, Swedish, Polish, Scotch, Jewish. The increase 
in population since 1900 has been due largely to an influx 

^® There was a question in the minds of the agents of the State 
Board of Education whether the law was retro-active, and whether 
under it they could turn out of factories those children who had 
certificates or those who had never attended school here. The 
Attorney-General decided these questions in the affirmative. 

^''Now deceased. 



465] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 53 

of Italians, who now number 1,000 or more. These 
people have come almost entirely from Melilli, a town 
of 6,000 or 7,000 population in the eastern part of Sicily. 
At least one-eighth of the entire population of this Sicilian 
town must have come to Middletown during the last five 
years, and they are still coming. In some cases whole 
families have come, in others only the father or the father 
and one or two of the older children, leaving the mother 
and younger children at home. In not a few cases, chil- 
dren have come alone, or with a married brother or sister, 
an uncle or cousin, or with a family who were neighbors 
in Sicily. Most of these children who have come without 
parents are boys, though there are probably twenty or 
more girls living here with an older sister, brother, uncle 
or acquaintance. The ages of these children are, for the 
most part, from 12 to 16 or 17 years, though none ac- 
knowledge that they are under 14. They are sent here to 
earn money to send home for the support of parents and 
younger brothers and sisters. They are usually quick to 
learn, faithful, free from bad habits, eager to earn money, 
and are rarely seen in the city court for causing disturb- 
ance or for other reasons. 

"Manner of Living. 
"While these different nationalities are found scat- 
tered, in some measure, throughout the city, each nation- 
ality, especially the Italian, Swedish, and Jewish, has its 
own settlement, and, to a considerable degree, lives apart 
by itself, speaking its own native language and practicing 
its native customs. However, their manner of living 
differs greatly. . . . One mother told me that she paid 
for lodgings and board for herself and two children, 10 
and 15 years old, $2.00 per week. The older child earned 
$3.00 per week, and upon this she was able to live with 
her children in comparative comfort. She did nothing 
and had done nothing for several years, having lived 
upon the earnings of this child. She cried bitterly when 
told that she must take the place of her child in the mill 
that he might go to school, but she finally consented to 
do so. 



54 American Economic Association [466 

"Some of the homes and boarding houses of these peo- 
ple are sanitary and neat, but usually bare of furniture 
and always of ornamentation of any sort. On the other 
hand, many of them are untidy and unclean." 

"Middletown's Industries. 

"The leading industries of Middletown consist of the 
manufactories of cotton webbing, hammocks, enamel 
ware, silk and rubber goods, marine ware, pumps, bone 
goods, horse blankets, and silver-plated ware. Most of 
the Italian children work in the mills that make cotton 
webbing, enamel ware, and hammocks. They earn from 
three dollars to five or six dollars a week. They spend 
little upon themselves except for board and cheap cloth- 
ing. The rest goes to help support the family either here 
or in Sicily. 

"Method of Investigation. 

"The legislature of 1905 gave to the State Board of 
Education concurrent power with that of local boards. 
What was to constitute a satisfactory education was left 
to the individual committees and the State Board of Edu- 
cation. Early in the fall term of the present year the 
Board of Education of this city, acting under the pro- 
visions of this statute (1905, ch. 36) voted that, 'As a 
rule, children should not be allowed to leave school until 
they have completed the sixth grade,' but took no action 
looking toward the return to school of any who had gone 
to work. The State Board of Education undertook the 
enforcement of the law in the cities and towns of the 
State. I was asked to act as its agent for the enforcement 
of the law in this city. 

"It was an easy matter to discover and return to school 
those children who had attended school in this city and 
had left to go to work. An examination of the enumera- 
tion list showed what children were under sixteen years 
of age and whether they were in school when the enu- 
meration was taken in October. In the case of these it 
was only necessary to find out from the teachers whether 
they had completed the sixth grade, and, if they had not, 



467] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 55 

to order them back to school. These included all excepc 
the Italian children. To discover the latter, the factories 
and shops were visited, and the certificates examined 
which were obtained from the town clerk. ... To 
make sure that none were missed, an examination was 
made of the duplicates kept in the office of the town clerk 
of all certificates issued during the last two years. All 
the children who were thus found to be under sixteen 
years of age were given opportunity to show the extent 
of their education. They were told by their employers 
to go to the High School on particular evenings, and 
make application for a different kind of certificate from 
that which they had obtained from the town clerk. Some, 
who claimed to be 16, but whose appearance scarcely 
bore out their claim, were also told to go. About fifty 
came. Those who said they were 16 were asked to 
prove their ages. Failing in this, as was usually the case, 
claiming, as most of them did, that they had lost their 
passports (the greater number of passports produced 
had been changed so as to make it appear that those to 
whom they had been issued were 16 years of age), those 
who could not pass the examinations were told to go to 
school until they produced certificates of birth from 
Melilli, showing them to be 16 years old. Of those who 
tried examinations at different times [47] , five, two boys 
and three girls, passed successfully, and were given certi- 
ficates, stating that they had been examined, found to 
have a satisfactory education, and could be lawfully em- 
ployed. All others were told to go to school at the begin- 
ning of the winter term, or in about one month, thus 
allowing them time to make any necessary arrangements 
and allowing employers time to procure other help. A 
room had also to be prepared for the anticipated class, 
and a teacher procured, for it was certain that there 
would be some who could not enter any of the regular 
classes, not having been to school anywhere. They could, 
perhaps, have been placed in the lowest primary classes 
with the very young children, but this seemed inadvisable 
for several reasons. 

"On the first day of the term, twelve Italians appeared 



56 American Economic Association [468 

at the school where a room had been specially prepared 
and six others returned to classes in other schools which 
they had previously attended. It became necessary to 
find the others who had been ordered to school. This 
was done, and, at the end of the week, the number had 
increased to twenty-five." Prompted by jealousy, those 
who were in school and their older brothers, parents and 
guardians were anxious to inform on those still at work. 
"The result was a long list of names and addresses of 
children who were said to be under 16 years of age. In 
company with an Italian who has resided here many 
years, who is a wise adviser of these people and a leader 
among them, and who was in thorough sympathy with 
the efforts that were being made for the Italian children, 
I called at the places where the children whose names had 
been given me were said to live. 

"Four evenings from seven till half past nine o'clock 
were devoted to this work, and it should be said to the 
credit of Italian parents and children that, in every in- 
stance but one, the children were at home. In at least 
three-fourths of the cases the children were found to be 
16 years of age or over, as was shown by passports or 
certificates of birth, but seven or eight children of school 
age were found and ordered to school. Not a few were 
found who said they were 16 years old, but who had lost 
their passports, as they claimed. If they appeared to be 
15 or possibly 16, it was agreed that they should be 
allowed to continue at work for one month, before the 
expiration of which time they should procure from Me- 
lilli certificates of birth showing their ages. Failing in 
this, they should, at the expiration of the month, go to 
school. If they were very clearly less than 16, they were 
ordered to school, and told to attend until they procured 
certificates proving their ages. At the end of the second 
week the number at school had increased to forty. It is 
probable that a few more will be found. It is also pos- 
sible that some of these who have sent for certificates of 
birth will not succeed in establishing their claims as to 
their ages, though this is not probable, since, as I am told, 
a considerable sum of money was usually enclosed in the 



469] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 57 

letter that was sent to Sicily for the certificate, whether 
as a bribe for a false certificate or as the usual graft 
necessary to secure a document o£ any kind in Sicily, I 
do not know." 

"Character of the Examination. 
"The examinations set for these Italian children were, 
of course, entirely in Italian, since few of them could 
read or understand English. They were not, in all re- 
spects, as difiQcult as those given our American children 
at the end of the sixth year of school. This was espe- 
cially true of the examinations in arithmetic, geography, 
and history. Ability to perform the fundamental opera- 
tions accurately and rapidly, to solve simple problems 
involving such operations — such problems as would nat- 
urally arise in the practical affairs of life — was accepted 
as satisfactory. A limited knowledge of the geography 
of Europe, chiefly of Italy, was deemed sufficient. In 
history, a subject to which apparently little attention is 
paid in the schools of Sicily, or, at least, in the schools of 
Melilli, few questions were asked, and most of these con- 
cerned Italian history. All of the five who passed the 
examinations successfully knew something about Colum- 
bus and a few other prominent Italian characters, but 
they knew little else about Italian history and nothing at 
all about the history of other countries. It was thought 
right to accept such a limited knowledge of these subjects 
in view of the fact that these children could read even 
difficult Italian with great fluency, write a beautiful hand, 
compose grammatically, punctuate and capitalize cor- 
rectly, and write an altogether more correct and attractive 
letter than many American children who complete our 
sixth grade. I am told that the schools of Melilli contain 
only five grades. It would appear that they devote almost 
exclusive attention to the three R's, but that they accom- 
plish good results in these subjects, at least with the 
brighter children. It would also appear that school at- 
tendance is not compulsory in Sicily, for three-fourths 
of these children from 14 to 16 years of age have very 
little education, and at least a third of them have never 
attended school at all. ..." 



S8 



American Economic Association 



[470 



STATISTICAL REPORT OF CHILDREN BETWEEN 14 AND 
16 YEARS OF AGE, MIDDLETOWN, CONNECTICUT.«i 









d 






X) 








?^ 
















.xj 








n 












































-« 






H 


C 

3 


f^ 














"ta 




S 






3 






rJ3 




CO 


^ 


8 


fl 


!3 












rxl 








T3 






!? 




^ 


1? 


en 


:3 





















VI 

vO 

1 




1 








a; 


08 

bjo t« 

.S 
-a ■^ 

1 ^ 




.s 


C3 
cS 

a 







.2 

u 




.52 

.s 

n 


l-H 

ri 


1— I 

.B 








t 

CO 

CI 






tJ 






^ 


a! 


-d 


ii 

u 2 


8 

Xi 


I-. 

(U 


J3 
5 




a 


bjo 
to 

.s 


2 

U 


0) 


13 

2 

b/5 




-i3 

CO 




2 

B 

g 


1 

u 

.s 




-a 

<L> 

1 




r3 


a 




CO 




CO u 
(U 













c 


bJD 


1 


bX) 












6 


6 


d 


6 


6 


6 





6 





d 


d 


d 


d 













iz; 


^ 


Z 


;2; 


IZi 


:^ 


Z 


iz; 


^ 


^ 


iz; 


12^ 


^ 


^ 


1^ 


^ 


Z, 


;z; 


English Scotch, 
Irish, 


134 
104 


no 

55 


20 
45 


4 
2 


2 
2 




























Italian, 


10 


2 


5 


42 


38 


47 


5 


37 


18 


10 


6 


I 


3 


4 


5 


2 


5 


10 


German, 


24 


15 


9 


































Swedish, 


24 


7 


15 


2 


I 




























Polish, 


6 


4 





2 


2 




























Jewish, 


8 


5 


2 


I 































French Canadians, 


2 








2 


2 






























312 


ig8 


q6 


55 


47 


47 


5 


37 


18 


10 


6' i' 3 


4 


5 


2 


■5 


ID 



The foregoing report shows the following conditions 
to be true in Middletown : 

(i) That there is a great influx of ignorant foreign 
born Italian children. 

(2) That many of these are sent here without parent 



^ " The table of statistics is not guaranteed to be absolutely correct, 
but it is very nearly correct. The part that concerns Italians is correct to 
date. The rest is perhaps wholly correct." — W. B. Ferguson. 

^'Date of Enumeration, Oct. '05. 



47 1 ] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 59 

or guardian, merely to earn money to send back to Italy. 

(3) That their countrymen with whom they live here 
for the most part have their own quarter of the city and 
there perpetuate their own customs and language. 

(4) That while these children are orderly and indus- 
trious, their chief concern is money making, and that they 
take very little interest in education, but whenever and 
however possible evade the compulsory school laws and 
the "child labor law" — only two out of forty-nine being 
in school, and only twelve having ever attended school in 
this country. 

(5) That the enumeration of children in this city was 
a farce, for while it showed only ten Italian children 
between fourteen and sixteen years of age, a thorough 
investigation, made only a few weeks later, showed that 
there were actually forty-nine, with a possible few still 
to be added to the list. 

(6) That very few of these children compare in edu- 
cation with our native born children, only five out of 
forty-seven being able to pass the simple examination set 
for them. 

(7) That their ignorance is so gross as to be dangerous 
to the welfare of the community in which they live, 
eighteen out of forty-nine never having attended school 
anywhere, and only ten of the forty-nine being able to 
speak English. 

(8) That thirty-eight of the forty- two children or- 
dered to school were sent out of the factories. 

(9) That it is possible to enforce this law and bring 
the children into the schools, and thus solve Connecticut's 
most difficult educational problem. 

So much space has been given this report because, in 
the opinion of the writer, the conditions it shows to exist 



6o American Economic Association [472 

in Middletown are very largely representative of the con- 
ditions in all the factory towns of the State where there 
is a large foreign element, and especially where this 
element is Italian or French Canadian. 

The great prosperity of Connecticut's industries and 
the consequent high wages and great demand for workers 
has resulted in increased numbers of foreign born chil- 
dren being brought or sent into the State to work. In 
other parts of the State Italian children have been coming 
without their parents. 

These foreigners congregate in certain cities, as the 
Italians in New Haven and Bridgeport, the Poles in New 
Britain, and the French Canadians in Putnam and Willi- 
mantic. Here they have their own quarter, speak their 
own language and often have their own parochial 
schools. ^^ Many of them take little interest in education 
and most of them crowd their children into the factories 
as soon as possible. Many of these children cannot read 
and write English, and, in the opinion of the writer, there 
are hundreds of them in Connecticut's factories to-day 
who could not pass such a "sixth grade" examination as 
was given the Italian children in Middletown. Often 
they enter the factories immediately on their arrival in 
this country and cannot even speak English. Usually 



*^ While these schools are under the supervision of the State Board 
of Education, it is freely admitted by the agents that in most cases 
they are much inferior to the public schools. Especially is this true 
when the teachers are foreign, as is too often the case. A French 
Canadian boy, fourteen years old, in a cotton mill at Putnam, said 
he had been to a CathoHc school five years. Yet he could not read. 
Another French Canadian boy fourteen years old in a cotton mill 
at Willimantic claimed he had been attending a parochial school in 
Willimantic eight years. He also could not read and wrote his name 
poorly. These schools should be more closely supervised or all 
children required to attend public schools. 



473] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 6i 

they have been taught to write their names and ages in a 
mechanical way. 

The agents of the State Board of Education judge a 
factory child's intelligence by his ability to read the fol- 
lowing form and follow the directions there given : 

"Please write on this paper your name, age, 
date of your last birthday, and the name of 
the town and country where you were born." 

Of sixty-eight children between fourteen and sixteen 
years old in factories in Putnam, Taftville, and Willi- 
mantic, eight were unable to pass this simple test properly 
and five were wholly unable to pass it. 

For the purpose of comparison the waiter submitted 
the same test to the children in the Orange Street School 
of New Haven, and under as nearly as possible the same 
conditions. The test would indicate that the children in 
the third grade are less well educated than the average 
of the factory children, but as well educated as the poorest 
in the factories. Their average age was a little over 
eight years. In the fourth grade the test would indicate 
that their education is not so good as that of the American 
born of the factory children, but much better than the 
Canadian born. Their average age was nine and a half 
years. In the fifth grade the test would indicate that they 
are much better educated than the Canadian born in the 
factories, not so well educated as the best educated of the 
American born, but that their average is as high as that 
of the children in the factories. Their average age was 
a little over ten. The sixth grade pupils were excelled 
only by the best educated of the American born in the 
factories. Their age was eleven years. 

Investigation has shown that in other cities than Mid- 



62 American Economic Association [474 

dletown there are children working in the factories whose 
names do not appear on the enumeration Hst. Nothing 
short of a close investigation will disclose all these chil- 
dren. It is feared that often this is not made. Were it 
made, and were this law made mandatory and thoroughly 
enforced, many a city in this State probably would have 
need, as had Middletown, for an additional school room 
and an extra teacher. 

Violations and Enforcement of the Child Labor 
AND Education Laws. 

With the appointment by the State Board of Education 
in 1869 of the first enforcing agent, began the first general 
and systematic attempt to enforce the child labor laws. 
And as violation and enforcement of law exist in inverse 
relation to each other, this point marks also the beginning 
of the decline in open and flagrant violations. But as the 
amount of legislation and the number of establishments 
were increasing rapidly, the one agent was wholly unable 
to cover the field, and hence the movement toward better 
enforcement was very slow till 1886, when (by ch. 124) 
the State Board of Education was authorized to appoint 
''agents" to enforce the law. These, six in number, were 
able to cover the field more thoroughly. But it took time 
to organize and get the movement under headway ; so that 
it is only since 1890 that there has been a general and 
efficient enforcement of these laws. 

Before 1886 the enforcement was left mainly to the 
local officers — selectmen, school visitors, grand jurors, 
and State's attorneys. These, with few exceptions, al- 
most wholly neglected their duties. A strong central 
power was needed to secure uniform observance. It was 
not until 1887 (ch. 23) that the State Board of Education 



475] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 63 

was entrusted with the enforcement of the important laws 
on this subject, and never have they had the hearty in- 
terest and co-operation of the local officers in this enforce- 
ment. 

Another difficulty was the laxness of the laws them- 
selves. Some, as we have seen, made no provision for 
their enforcement or fixed no penalties for their violation, 
while in other cases several local officers were relied on 
to enforce the same law. Then, after 1886, when there 
was an earnest attempt to enforce the laws, it was found 
that many of them were full of loop-holes and exceptions, 
thus rendering their enforcement impossible. Revisions 
and amendments were necessary and frequent. ^^ 

Public Opinion. — Public sentiment during the first part 
of this period was very weak. What there was favored 
the laws. In 1873 the Governor said: 

"The [compulsory] law is generally approved, and I 
learn of no opposition to it. Since its enactment no arti- 
cle, editorial or contributed, in any Connecticut paper, 
has expressed disapproval of it, so far as my knowledge 
extends." 

But there was little "active and spontaneous interest in 
the law" or its enforcement. Not until 1890 was there 
strong public opinion supporting the law, and only in the 
last few years has there been a general demand for its 
enforcement. At present legislation is not far in advance 
of public sentiment. 

Attitude of Employers. — The annual reports of the 

°*"In considering these questions it should be remembered that 
the laws have been advanced. The ideal of conformity to law is one 
thing, the advancement of the law toward a higher ideal is another 
thing. . . . This high standard makes apparent many violations 
of the law."— Report State Board of Education, 1898, p. z^. 



64 American Economic Association [476 

enforcing agents of the State Board of Education, and 
the reports of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, throughout 
this period are very uniform in commending the favor- 
able attitude of employers to the educational and child 
labor laws. According to these reports they offered no 
opposition and usually joined in the efforts of the officers 
to enforce the laws. They favored the school laws, 
though often they had to pay nine-tenths of the taxes to 
build school houses and support schools, and although it 
was troublesome and embarrassing to secure certificates, 
discharge children to attend school, and secure and train 
others to fill their places. Indeed, there are many cases 
in which companies built school houses and hired teach- 
ers, or provided libraries, public lectures, and evening 
schools at their own expense. Many of them have long 
recognized that they have further duties than the mere 
payment of the stipulated wages ; and that their sole aim 
should not be ''to get the utmost amount of work for the 
smallest pay." 

The early violations by employers were said to be due 
mainly to carelessness, the importunities of the parents, 
the general non-enforcement of the law, the belief that 
they must have this cheap labor to compete, and the fact 
that often the children they discharged went to the street 
and not to school. In recent years violations of the child 
labor law have not been so numerous and they have been 
confined chiefly to small shops and stores, and to vacation 
work. 

While the views of the employers often have been in 
advance of those of the parents and of the general public, 
it is the opinion of the writer that the reports of the State 
Board of Education and the reports of the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics have always attributed to the employer 



477] Labor Legislation of Connecticut -65 

too keen a sense of right and justice, and too great a 
desire to follow the letter of the law. These reports too 
often have been soothing and conciliatory in this respect, 
and are not borne out by their own statements of the 
number of cases of illegal employment found. Had the 
employers so generally been impelled by so great a desire 
to follow the law, there would have been little need for 
the appointment of State agents to enforce it, for no one 
can more surely detect a case of illegal employment than 
the employer himself. 

Attitude of Parents. — While the Reports of the State 
Board of Education and of the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
are full of praises of the attitude of employers toward 
child labor and education, they are strong in their denun- 
ciation of the attitude of parents. They hold the parents 
directly responsible for most of the illegal employment of 
children, and their non-attendance or irregular attendance 
at school. They contain numerous examples like the 
following : 

"If parents were as careful about illegal absence as the 
employers are about illegal employment, the average at- 
tendance in school would improve." — Report State Board 
of Education, 1901. 

"The fact has been distinctly developed that the parents 
are to blame for making the children work, and that 
wherever there is any child labor which can properly call 
for interference on account of the extreme youth of the 
children, the prolonged hours of labor, or anything else, 
it is the rapacity of parents which causes it. It is the 
parents who exploit the children." — Report State Board 
of Education, 1887. 

"... The principal opposition to the law comes 
from the parents. In various ways and for various as- 
signed reasons, but evidently very largely from pure 



66 American Economic Association [478 

avarice, many parents continue to seek every opportunity 
to place their children in manufactories, etc., before they 
can legally be there." — Report State Board of Education, 
1888. 

''Children have been kept from school sometimes by 
the avarice of parents, oftener by their apparent necessi- 
ties, but in a far greater number of cases by sheer neg- 
lect." — Report State Board of Education, i< 



Parents "profess to blame employers if their children 
are too long absent from school, even when it is only 
through their own solicitations and deceptions that they 
are employed at all." — Report State Board of Education, 
1888. 

While the foregoing statements may be true and un- 
biased, — and often the writer has found them representa- 
tive of present conditions in the State, — it must not be 
forgotten that there are always two responsible parties 
to a contract ; and it must be borne in mind that most of 
these statements applied only to those families who had 
children at work and were not true of the great mass of 
families who had no children at work. Most of the child 
labor and the non-attendance at school comes from the 
foreign population. The French Canadians furnish most 
of the cases. ^^ Many of them would not send their chil- 
dren to school at all if not compelled to.^^ Then, there 
is a floating population which comes to the State to work, 



^ "It is freely confessed by themselves that they leave Canada and 
come into the States to exploit their children when they are young 
and under the parents' control. As soon as the parents have made 
as much money as they can out of the children they go back to 
Canada to enjoy life on the small places which there abound." — 
Report State Board of Education, 1887, p. 121. 

^"Oi the two hundred and twelve illiterates found during the 
year (1900-1901) one hundred and eighty-two were born in Canada. 
. . . "—Report State Board of Education, 1901, p. 63. 



479] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 67 

does not stay long in any one place and tries to evade 
sending the children to school. These two classes give 
nearly all the trouble. Their chief plea for employing 
the children is necessity. Experience and investigation, 
however, have shown that in the great majority of cases 
this is not a valid excuse. There is a small minority of 
native born parents who through utter neglect fail to send 
their children to school or through rapacity and cupidity 
send them to work. On the whole, parents, especially the 
Canadian and Italian parents, have approved the law 
much less generally than employers and have shown a 
much greater tendency to violate it. 

• Attitude of the Enforcing Agents. — In the last half 
century, as we have seen, public opinion, w^hat there was, 
was in favor of this body of legislation, employers gener- 
ally supported it, and parents, except a few short-sighted 
or rapacious ones, offered no resistance to its enforce- 
ment. Why then, for several years after the appointment 
of six enforcing agents in 1886, was it so laxly enforced? 
This, I think, was due largely to the manner in which 
these same officers went about their duty. They acted 
much as if they believed this body of legislation was 
essentially different from ordinary laws, and that in en- 
forcing it they might be infringing on vested rights; or 
as if parents and employers desired to obey the law and 
needed only to be instructed what the law was. They 
tried exhortation, notification, and conciliation, but scru- 
pulously avoided prosecution. They were too afraid of 
giving offense, although they recognized the "very salu- 
tary" effects of the "few prosecutions" made.^'^ 



®^"One father who defied the law and could not pay a fine, nor 
furnish bonds, was sent to jail, where he was kept three weeks, the 
first case in this State in which a parent has been sent to jail for not 
sending his child to school. This case had the desired effect and. 



68 American Economic Association [480 

Experience taught these agents that fines and imprison- 
ments had the greatest persuasive powers and were the 
most convincing arguments of any they could bring to 
bear upon dehnquent and defiant parents and employers, 
The following figures and table show that prosecutions 
were entirely incommensurate with violations. 

For a quarter of a century (1869- 1894) after the law 
took effect there were but 33 prosecutions for the employ- 
ment of children under fourteen years of age who had 
not attended school twelve weeks of the preceding twelve 
months; and only 223 prosecutions of parents for not 
causing their children to attend school.^^ From 1886, 
when the ''child labor law" took effect, to 1894 there were 
only 25 prosecutions for the employment of children 
under thirteen years of age.^^ The following is a sum- 
mary of the enforcement of the law relating to school 
attendance for the year 1902- 1903 :^^ 

Number absent illegally 2,256 

Number at work illegally 71 

Parents prosecuted 48 

Employers prosecuted 2 

Thus an employer ran only two chances in seventy-one 
of being prosecuted when detected employing a child 

broke up a kind of conspiracy to resist the law." — State Board of 
Education Report, 1883. 

"Perhaps if employers were made by legal prosecutions to feel 
that they will be required to pay the forfeit for every case of neglect, 
they would perfectly observe the law without being called upon by 
school visitors or your agent." — Report State Board of Education, 
1878. 

"Instead of brandishing the penalties of the law, we have kept 
them in the background, and urged mainly the great advantage of 
education." 

^ Report State Board of Education, 1894-1895, p. 84. 

*' Report State Board of Education, 1894-1895, p. 84. 

"^^Ihid., 1904, p. 72. 



48i] 



Labor Legislation of Connecticut 



6gr 



illegally, and the parent ran only one chance in forty- 
seven of being prosecuted for the illegal absence of his 
child from school. 



SUMMARY FOR TWELVE YEARS." 





Establishments 


Children under ] 


4 Years 


Years 










Prosecutions 




Visited 


Inspected 


Employed 


Discharged 


for 
Employment 


1892 


601 


550 


44 


88 




1893 


572 


531 


67 


72 


6 


1894 


435 


369 


II 


14 


3 


1895 


493 


418 


57 


79 


8 


1896 


459 


430 


114 


114 


7 


1897 


673 


398 


70 


70 


II 


1898 


567 


581 


26 


26 


I 


1S99 


581 


515 


109 


109 


I 


1900 


626 


542 


75 


75 


14 


1901 


637 


522 


36 


36 


6 


1902 


651 


548 


24 


24 


4 


1903 


792 


640 


24 


24 


2 



The above table shows that from 1892- 1903 there was 
approximately one prosecution for each ten cases of 
illegal employment discovered. In 1899 there was one 
prosecution to 109 cases of illegal employment. While 
the support of the employers is necessary to the thorough 
enforcement of these laws, and while conciliation is a 
good thing in its place, it is evident that it has been given 
too large a place here. 

Decrease of Child Labor. — Before 1870 we have no 
reliable statistics as to the number of children employed 
in the State. In the next decade there was an increase in 
the number employed and since then there has been a 
rapid decrease, as is shown by the following table : 

" Report State Board of Education, 1904, p. 72. 



H 

^; 

(X! 

I— I 
h:i 
pq 
<^ 
H 

C/3 
W 

< 

U 

u 

H 

;^. 

Q 
g 

S 

H 
O 
<1 











. o 






. o oo 






_ . . .1 




^ 


'm''''w Min 




•H....Cn MCO 




CO 


m' cT 




*^ 


CO 

. . . . M ...... 




o 


rococo .cocooo or^M 

CO '^OO M O t^ ' ■ ■ Tf O CO ■ 






. 




IT) 
CO 


r--c^^^. .i-'^'*- • • MOuo. 












CO "^O M CO cT cT 

CO M ■ • ... 












O M r^ • • oco ■^ o r^ ^ ■* oo . . 




O 


mOO .cic^r^* 'o cococo ' 'r^ 




O 


'^.. "-L 'l^ '"' '-1 ^ * * 't ^.. "^ * ' *^. ' ' 




CO 








'^ c^ . . .CO . . t^ . . 






o as 






oO'*OorAMcorfa>Tf(N r^'^cowdo 




o 


(NCOMM MTj-COON^ MOOOMvn 




r^ 


MVOCOO M-^r^ON M MCOOO M-' 




CO 






M 


O <N c^ CO . . 






CO CO o 






coOMiDr^cNoou-iodo cococof^-dcocoeo 




9. 


COMXD^ ooOTfwat^ COOO \r,^ M l-l M M 




CO 


TfvO^CO^ '^ CO ^ C> CO ^., ° '^^ '^.°°.. 




CO 






M 


'^iricoco vo'iopf o" vocom" 0C> 
!> C^ CO t-^ 






<M CTv O^ 






C< CO M vo ci in OO ir>i>.in moc^O^'^ 




o 


MMMco voi>-o^ ID r^iDMr^ M 




^ 


CO CO M o '^O O M r^ to rj- o . • 




CO 




t- 


M 


"OmOco OiOM rt inco •^ 


H 




O CO CO CO • , 




M ON M . • 










o o o^ 




coOioOcit^voco(Nt~~-"* mr-<coM'<^MOci 


1— 1 




WMOr^ iDM'^co f^ 0'x^ t^co to t^ M 


o 


MOO'* CTncOO^ '^ mOcO com 


O 


Rs 




C^O(Nco Oir> M xnw Mm 


w 


o 


CO "* O N M 


;z; 


M 


M o_ c< 


;zi 




^ 


o 










O 




b c«' . 


P3H 










. . ..ai . 






* • .2 ' 


o 




., 










o 
. . . o . 










«1 • 
















: : a. 






i • • 






, . 




' 'I' 






3 






-fi . . 
















o 






2 








0-> 












i * 




i2 • 




• ■ o • 






• -s ■ 










• s • 




'. '. 'A'. 






■ •1 £ 

■ • two rt 










J3 


(fl 






-.. "" 






echanica 
loyed, . 
;mp]oyed 
ployed, . 
es" . . 
■ establis! 
loyed , . 
mployed 
ployed, . 
es, . . 

Ushment 






• -.S f^ 










• -'-a "? 










V " 










' ■ be o 






y and m 
ver emp 
d over e 
ears em 
employe 
acturing 
ver emp 
d over e 
ears em 
smploye 
rated, . 
g estab 


d over, 
'ears, . 

rated, . 
years en 
ildren r 






Total manufacturinj 
Men i6 years and o 
Women i6 years an 
Children under i6 y 
Percentage of total ( 
Total cotton manuf; 
Men 1 6 years and o 
Women i6 years an 
Children under i6 y 
Percentage of total ( 
No. of Spindles ope 
Wool manufacturin 
and knit goods 
Men 1 6 years and o 
Women i6 years an 
Children under i6 y 
Percentage of total. 
No. of spindles ope 
Total No. lo to 15 
Percentage of all ch 














„ — ^ -■ — N 






'li Xi o 'O 1 










s_ 






^ — ' 






V.^ 1 



a 
a. 

3 
o 
o 

o 



in a 

a" 

O etf 



^ bo 

gB 

U 4) 






483] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 71 

This table shows : 

(i) That while from 1870 to 1900 the total number 
of manufacturing and mechanical establishments was in- 
creasing rapidly and that while there was a great increase 
in the total number of employees, there was a marked 
decrease in the number and per cent, of children em- 
ployed. 

(2) That, likewise, in the cotton and wool industries 
there was a rapid increase in the number of employees 
and the number of spindles operated, and a rapid decrease 
in the number and per cent, of children employed. 

(3) That while there was an increase in the total num- 
ber of children engaged in gainful occupations, 1880 to 
1900, there was a rapid decrease in the number engaged 
in the manufacturing and mechanical industries (the in- 
dustries to which the child labor law applies). 

(4) That in the cotton and woolen industries the de- 
crease in the number of children employed was more 
rapid than in the total of manufacturing and mechanical 
industries, but that the decrease in the per cent, the chil- 
dren bore to the whole number of employees was less 
rapid. 

(5) Most important of all is the abrupt drop in the 
number and per cent, of children employed between the 
census of 1880 and that of 1890. This indicates very 
strongly that the "child labor law" which went into 
effect in 1886 had been effective of great results before 
1890. 

On the whole these figures seem to show, as conclus- 
ively as figures can show such things, that the child labor 
laws of Connecticut have been very effective in reducing 
the employment of children in the factories. And the 
low per cent. (2 %) which the number of children under 
sixteen years of age is of the total employees in the manu- 



72 American Economic Association [484 

facturing and mechanical establishments is good evidence 
that the law is being well enforced. However, the same 
census"^^ shows that in 1900 there were 393 children 
under fourteen years of age — the age below which child 
labor is prohibited — occupied in the manufacturing and 
mechanical industries of the State. 

Conclusion. 

The child labor legislation of Connecticut has cov- 
ered a long period. It has been loose and full of loop 
holes — so full of them and of such large ones that be- 
fore 1905 it would never, even if enforced, have held 
an over-anxious French Canadian child out of the fac- 
tories. Even now, as shown by the Middletown investi- 
gation, there are hundreds of little urchins in the fac- 
tories who ought to be in the schools. 

The legislation, all of it, has never been enforced. 
Before 1869 there was no attempt to enforce it and 
public opinion did not demand its enforcement. From 
1869 to 1886 many of the laws were unenforcible and the 
enforcing power was entirely inadequate. Since 1886 the 
legislation often has been in advance of the opinions of 
those whose duty it was to enforce it. It is so to-day, 
and, hence, the enforcement is not what it should be. 

The enforcement, as well as legislation, has been ren- 
dered doubly difficult by the presence here of a large 
foreign element, especially the French Canadians. Never 
before the acts of 1905 (chs. 36 and 115) was there 
adequate legislation to deal with all the features of the 
problem as it existed, and never has there been an earnest 
attempt to enforce all the laws on the statute books. 

Although Connecticut has had, in some respects, a 
difficult problem to deal with, and although she has made 



'* Twelfth U. S. Census, Vol. on Occupations (1904), P- 178 and 
following. 



485] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 73 

great progress and now has a fair body of child-labor and 
education laws, she has no reason to boast of the rapidity 
with which she has reached this position. She has plenty 
yet to do in reviving and enforcing the dead letters now 
on her statute books/^ in lopping off the decayed parts of 
the law/^ and in extending the protection of the living 
parts to newsboys, messenger boys and their class,^^ to 
night workers and to those who work in dangerous occu- 
pations or places. "^^ Many of her people have yet to 
realize that the child is in no sense responsible for the 
poverty of its parents, and that the only safe rule for the 
^ State to lay down is that every child shall have a mini- 

mum of education and a normal moral and physical de- 
velopment regardless of the economic condition of its 
parents — that this is a duty the State owes to the child, 
and one that she must exercise for her own future safety 
and for the welfare of her future citizens. 



^^ G. S. 1902, sec. 2147. 

^"G. S. 1902, sec. 2121 ; G. S. 1902, sec. 2116, first sentence. 

"The following is largely true in Connecticut to-day: "Of this 
multitude of street boys, there are thousands who are still under 
fourteen, at the most impressionable, the most critical stage of life. 
Among the messenger boys a large number do all-night work be- 
tween all-night houses and all-night people; some every week, some 
alternative weeks — some in four-hour shifts — some twelve hours at 
a stretch." — Independent, 55 : 2)77- 

^^Connecticut has no law prohibiting the employment of young 
people and women at night, or prohibiting their employment in 
dangerous occupations and places. 



CHAPTER 11. 

HOURS OF LABOR, AND THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE 
RESTRICTIONS ON CHILD AND WOMAN LABOR. 

(a) Hours of Labor. 
Early Laws. — The first statutory regulation of the 
hours of labor in Connecticut was in 1842 (ch. 3). That 
law provided that no child under fourteen years of age 
should be employed in a cotton or woolen establishment 
over ten hours in any one day. The penalty for violation 
was seven dollars. It was made the duty of the school 
visitors annually to examine into the situation of the chil- 
dren employed in the manufacturing establishments and 
to cause prosecutions for violations of the act. This law 
was superseded by the act of 1855 (ch. 45) which pro- 
vided (Sec. i) that ten hours should be a legal day's 
labor in mechanical or manufacturing establishments 
unless otherwise agreed. Section two provided that no 
minor under eighteen years of age should be employed 
in any manufacturing or mechanical establishment more 
than eleven hours in any one day. There was a penalty 
of twenty dollars for violation, but no provision was 
made for the enforcement of the act. Section two was 
repealed the next year (1856, ch. 39), and it was made 
illegal to employ in any manufacturing or mechanical 
establishment ^'any minor under eighteen years of age 
more than twelve hours in any one day, nor more than 
sixty-nine hours in any one week." The penalty for 
violation was twenty dollars, and the constables and 
grand juorors were required to enquire after and make 
presentment of offenses. 

74 [486 



487] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 75 

The act of 1856 was repealed by the act of 1867 (ch. 
124) which provided that no manufacturing or mechan- 
ical establishment should employ "any minor under 
fifteen years of age more than ten hours in any one day 
nor more than fifty-eight hours in any one week." The 
penalty for violation was fifty dollars for the employer, 
and ten dollars for the guardian or parent. Constables 
and grand jurors were to make presentment of offenses. 

None of these early laws were enforced.^ 

The Eight-Hour Law. — In the latter part of the ''six- 
ties" the labor unions of the State became quite active in 
politics. In 1866 and 1867 there was a strong eight-hour 
movement among them. They formed an "Eight-Hour 
League" and in 1867 took a prominent part in the election 
of the governor. "Their campaigns were conducted 
under an eight hour issue. They were promised, if suc- 
cessful, an eight hour law. The dominant party did give 
them an eight hour law but spoiled it for the laborers by 
adding a rider that it should not be obligatory if there 
was an agreement otherwise."^ The law (1867, ch. 37) 
was as follows: 

"Eight hours of labor, done and performed in any one 
day, by any one person, shall be deemed a lawful day's 
work unless otherwise agreed by the parties." The law 
is practically the same to-day, (G. S. 1902, sec. 4692). 
It has been ineffective. The Report of the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, (1874, p. 52) says of it: 

"The above act has had no particular effect upon pre- 
viously existing relations between workmen and their 

^ "There are a great many instances where this law (1867, ch. 124) 
is violated — violated so directly that the people who live in such 
places laugh at the idea of making new laws while the existing laws 
remain unenforced. Taking the State as a whole, however, it is 
probably fair to say that the law is evaded rather than openly vio- 
lated."— Connecticut Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1885, p. 51, A. T. 
Hadley, Commissioner. 

^ Connecticut Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1902, p. 332. 



76 American Economic Association [488 

employers. The whole question is therefore left as be- 
fore to the mutual agreement of the parties." 

The Ten-Hour Law. — In 1887 (^h. 62) a law was 
passed regulating the hours of labor of women and 
minors. It provides that, no minor under sixteen years 
of age and no woman shall be employed in any manu- 
facturing, mechanical, or mercantile establishment more 
than ten hours in any one day, except when it is neces- 
sary to make repairs, or for the sole purpose of mak- 
ing a shorter day's work for one day of the week; 
unless such employment is to make up for time lost on 
some previous day of the same week in consequence of 
the stopping of machinery upon which such person was 
employed or dependent for employment; but in no case 
shall the hours of labor exceed sixty in a week. The 
employer is required to post in a conspicuous place in 
every room where such persons are employed, a sched- 
ule of the number of hours work required of them on 
each day of the week. There is a penalty of twenty dol- 
lors for ''willfully" employing or permitting to be em- 
ployed a person contrary to the provisions of the act; 
but it adds that *'a certificate of the age of the minor, 
made by him or by his parent or guardian at the time of 
his employment shall be conclusive evidence of his age 
upon the trial of any person other than the parent or 
guardian for violation of the preceding section." Com- 
ment is unnecessary, this provision exposes its own weak- 
ness. The law is the same to-day, (G. S. 1902, sec. 
4691). 

This law was advocated by the laboring people and 
opposed by some of the manufacturers. A number of 
bills were before the legislature in the "eighties" before 
it was passed in 1887. It seems that the labor unions 
hoped that this law would result in reducing the hours 
for all to ten a day. The manufacturers opposed it be- 



489 Labor Legislation of Connecticut 77 

cause they thought that such a restriction on hours in the 
textile mills would injure Connecticut in competition 
with other states; would drive capital out of the State; 
diminish the demand for Connecticut labor, and seriously 
injure her prosperity as a manufacturing State. It ap- 
pears, however, that the ten hour act was not advocating 
any radical change but was merely enacting into a law 
what was already fast becoming an established custom. 
In 1885, two years before the enactment of the law, the 
Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (p. 54) says: 

"In Connecticut itself, right in the midst of the eleven 
hour districts, some of the most enlightened mill-owners 
run but ten hours, and do not seem to lose money by so 
doing."^ 

The Report of 1887 (p. 234) says, 

"Custom established the ten hour working day before 
it appeared on our statutes.^ Custom has not yet ordered 
an eight hour working day, and our statute on the subject 
is inoperative." 

No provision was made for the enforcement of the 
law of 1887, and it has never been closely obeyed. The 
movement for shorter hours seems to have gone on with- 
out regard to it, and not because of it. What effect it 
has had in hastening this movement cannot be deter- 
mined. It was not long after the enactment of the law 
before most of the mills were following the ten-hour 
rule, but this seems to have been due more to the enforce- 
ment of a growing custom by the employees than to the 
enforcement of the law by the civil officers. The writer 

' "Twelve per cent, of the men, twenty-two per cent, of the 
women, and thirty-four and a half per cent, of the children are 
employed more than ten hours daily. On the other hand, thirty per 
cent, of the men, twenty-eight per cent, of the women, and only 
eleven per cent, of the children are employed less than ten hours 
daily."— Report of Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1886, p. XV, 
A. T. Hadley, Commissioner. 

*In 1885 only "15.26 per cent, of the establishments and 16.2 per 
cent, of the employees were working over sixty hours per week." 



78 American Economic Association [490 

has been unable to learn of a single prosecution under the 
act. The following statements from the Reports of the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics show that violations have 
been frequent : 

"Many employers comply with the law so far as to 
post notices to the effect that after the first day of July 
ten hours would constitute a day's work for women and 
children, with the saving clause, 'except when otherwise 
ordered.' It can be shown in many instances that it has 
been 'otherwise ordered', when the convenience of the 
employer demanded it." — 1887, p. 22. 

"The limit of time is often extended to meet the de- 
mands for increased production of goods during the busy 
season. ... It is not effectual in cases where employers 
desire to run more than ten hours from time to time to 
meet their convenience, and are not restrained by a sense 
of obligation to obey a plain law of the State." — 1888, 
pp. 25, 29. 

"Complaints have been frequent of the continued vio- 
lation of the law, ... It is done for the convenience of 
employers when the exigencies of their business seem to 
make it desirable for them." — 1889, P- I4- 

"The law . . . is to a great extent inoperative. Its 
provisions are observed where the employer's interest is 
served, and ignored where conveniences or a demand for 
increased production makes it profitable for employers. 
There are honorable exceptions but this is the rule." — 
1890, p. 28. 

While at present ten hours a day is the rule, as will 
be shown later, the law is often ignored when there is a 
rush of orders. The writer has discovered cases of its 
violation in several different sections of the State. Some 
of the employers confess freely that they "do not live 
up to the law", and that when rushed they "run till nine 
o'clock two or three nights a week." This is true in 
one of the best factories in the State. The provision of 
the law which requires an employer to post a schedule of 
working hours in all rooms where women and minors 
are employed is, and always has been, a dead letter. Only 



49 Labor Legislation of Connecticut 79 

a very few of the factories of the State have such sched- 
ules posted; and many of the employers are ignorant of 
any law requiring them to post such notices. 

The law also is commonly violated in the retail stores 
and shops. Particularly is this so in the large depart- 
ment stores at holiday time. Then, for several days, 
many of the w^omen clerks work hard as many as twelve 
hours a day. 

The principal reason why manufacturers violate this 
law is that during certain short periods in the year there 
is a greatly increased demand for their goods. They 
must meet this demand or lose their customers. At such 
times it is a hardship to secure and train a separate set of 
hands, when these hands are not required for any consid- 
erable period and not more than once or twice during the 
year. On the other hand they cannot afford to increase 
the capacity of their plants merely for the work of these 
short periods. Then, many of the employers believe that 
a law restricting the hours of labor of women is unconsti- 
tutional and an invasion of personal rights, and that, 
therefore, they are not morally bound to obey such a law. 

The Decline of Weekly Hours of Labor. — There are 
no statistics showing the number of hours worked each 
week in the different industries of the State before i860. 
We can only surmise from what was true then what prob- 
ably was true before that time.^ The following table 

" "Long Work Days in i860." "Some examples of the extra long 
work day in i860 are as follows : A quarry in Middlesex County 
where the working time was from sunrise to sunset ; a cotton mill in 
Fairfield County which confined its employees eighty-four hours 
weekly; three textile mills in Middlesex and one textile mill in 
Hartford County which were in operation seventy-eight hours per 
week; a textile mill in Hartford County and a distillery in the same 
county which required from seventy-two to seventy-eight hours of 
service per week; and textile mills in Tolland, Hartford, Fairfield, 
and New London Counties, a brewery in New Haven County and a 
chemical factory in Bridgeport where the daily hours of labor were 



8o American Economic Association [492 

gives the statistics for i860, 1880, 1892, and 1904. The 
statistics for each of these years are confessedly imper- 
fect. In no year do they cover all the industries and 
employees of the State. Those for i860, 1880, and 1892 
were collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1892. 
The ones for i860 are not even accurately representative 
because of the small number of returns and because of 
the difficulty of obtaining returns from those sections 
where the long working day was most common. In the 
statistics for 1904 the figures for the building trades were 
not considered. In many places the eight hour day ob- 
tains in this trade. 

With these explanations the statistics are offered for 
what they are worth. At best they can be taken only as 
approximately representative of the conditions in the 
industries enumerated. 



twelve. Eleven or eleven and one-half hours per day were very 
common in Connecticut factories in i860, about one-quarter of the 
establishments reporting having the long day." 

"There are two notable exceptions in i860 — one a varnish factory 
in New Haven County working nine hours daily, and the other a 
shirt factory in Fairfield County, where the daily hours were nine 
and one-half." 

"Even in 1880 some exceptionally long days were reported. A 
brewery in New Haven County gave ninety-eight hours per week as 
the working time, and a hat factory in Fairfield County eighty hours 
weekly. Twelve hours per day remained the requirement in some 
textile mills in Middlesex and Tolland Counties, in some iron mills 
in Litchfield County, in breweries in New Haven and Fairfield 
Counties, and in a shoe shop in Fairfield County. A cotton mill in 
Fairfield County was running seventy and one-half hours weekly, 
some textile mills in Hartford, Fairfield and Tolland Counties were 
working sixty-six hours weekly, while the running time in nearly all 
the factories in Windham County was from sixty-six to sixty-nine 
hours per week. Brick yards, where the hours are long and irregu- 
lar, and paper mills, in which two sets of men work from eleven to 
twelve hours daily, are not considered in this connection." — Report 
Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1893, p. 22. 



• ^ 3 CO * 





^ 


re 




o 


^ 


13 


sr 






M 


S 


£3 


ET 


no 


c 
{J) 


r-^ 


cr 


o 

D 

td 
a 


4^ 




E' 






U) 


rr 


% 

H 


a 


1 




c: 


m 






T3 


o 


<T> 

3 




=^-f 


r'^ 




3 


D 


p 


o 


rn 


Kf 


crv! 




,_^ 




o 








00 


►1 


D- 


U 


rn* 




O) o 


C/2 




ns 




-1 

8^ 


Si 


t/3 


(A 


n* 




v; 


^ 


" 


o 


a> 






M 


c 


H 


o 


tJ' 


^ 


W3 


►a 


CO 


o 


Ji- 


^3 


o 


ON 




►o 




H) TS 


to 

P 


n CO 

— n3 


o 

3 


fD 

o 
a> 




E3 


fi 


n 


?r 






-I »-< 13 C 

^ 3 fD 



3 T O 



• O 3 ^ 

S. O O P^ 

i^ ST ^ ^• 

o «> n> 3 

(T^ - J- 

3 -t o f^ 

3 n w 

r< o w 2. 

^3 O 

;:5 n> "^ 



2 o 






O ^ 



n o o a n 

<^ S 2 ^ 



O -t p 
O ^ 3 

Crt O 
O iTJ 
Cu p 






P 3* 2 

^ wO 

w 3-0 
3- o o 

g - '^ 



§ a ?i3 S 

p ^"^ - ^ 

hcj 3 



noon td 
2 2 2 £^ p 

rl- r+ c« -( (fl 

O O fti r* ''^ 

» 3 r?c^ p 



o ., 

3 O 

CL O 



^ o 

n ST 



tr. o 
t= o 

W CL 



W3 Q, 

g W 
(J w 

p-g 
ft (/) 

P 






w 






ONOO-)i^-P^OOO 
O^OOUsOiOOO 






, O^vO O O to to vO O O 
'~*' M O tOUi coooO O^O 



tji 0>4i^ c^ 



== C6^ 

U5 OO M 4i. M Oi O0t_»3 03 MOi-P^CnMCjJ t0>O COtO M tO 

-~Jto4i'OtO-(^Ocr>^OtoiOOOOw<-"'<lWt>54i, 



vO O O O^ aN<-n tji oo O tji O^ O cow M to CR C^O -P^ O 
O C^W 0^0 03 O O"^ to to (-" to C04^ u\ O C^ O O l-ri 



4^ -J 4^ W 4^ 4i. 



O O^ CO 



Omjx CO CO 

OO CO O -t^ 



vO -^ 4^ CO M 
O to <x>4^ 4^ 



03 4^ M 
M 4i. M --J 

Co Co b -^ 

<r CO o CO 



Cfl 



O CI. 
C ft) 



C n 



C 3- 
B O 

CU a 



m 
w 
t^ 

^^ 

fD Q 

^ cj 

3 5* 

;? ^ 
^ 2 

^ > 

3 O 

ST ^ 



o W 



w 



fT> 

^- a 

m 
2 

5 

en 



82 American Economic Association [494 

This table shows that the percentage of employees 
working over ten hours a day fell from 20.39 i^ i860 to 
17.19 in 1880; while the percentage working ten hours 
or less daily rose in the same period from 79.61 to 82.81.'^ 
Thus, seven years before the passage of the law (1887, 
ch. 62) limiting the hours of labor of women and chil- 
dren to ten a day, 82.81 per cent, of the employees of the 
State were working only ten hours a day. It should be 
noted, also, that in "Cotton Goods" and "Cotton Mills" 
and in "Woolens and Woolen Mills", the industries in 
which child and women labor was most prevalent, all 
were working over ten hours a day in i860; and that in 
1880, 90.57 per cent, of those employed in "Cotton 
Goods" and "Cotton Mills", and 73.08 per cent, of those 
employed in "Woolens and Woolen Mills" were still 
working over ten hours a day. That no radical change was 
brought about by the law of 1887 is evidenced by the fact 
that still in 1892, 71.01 per cent, of those working in 
"Cotton Goods" and "Cotton Mills", and 54.05 per cent, 
of those working in "Woolens and Woolen Mills" were 
working over ten hours a day. As less than 50 per cent, 
of the wage earners in the cotton industry in 1890 were 
men, the 70.01 per cent, of employees in that industry 
working over ten hours a day in 1892 must have been to 
a considerable extent made up of women and children in 
violation of the law of 1887. 

In 1904 the textile industries still lead in long hours. 

"^ "The percentage of establishments working ten hours or less 
daily was largest in New Haven County in i860 — 94.44 — Fairfield 
ranking next with 87.27 per cent.; then Hartford with 75.93, 
and Litchfield with 71.05. In that year the per cent, in Tolland 
County was 25.00, in New London 57.14, and in Middlesex 58.06. 
New Haven County retained the first place in 1880, with a percent- 
age of 95.42, Fairfield being again second with 93.23, these two 
counties far outranking the others, Hartford having 83.60, Middlesex 
79.71, Litchfield 71.05, New London 60.00, Tolland 34-48, and Wind- 
ham 10.81."— Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1893, p. 20. 



495j Labor Legislation of Connecticut 83 

But in ''Cotton Goods" 12.66 per cent., in ''Cotton Mills" 
4.50 per cent., and in "Woolens and Woolen Mills" 17.96 
per cent, of the employees are working less than sixty- 
hours a week. On the whole there has been a rapid 
reduction of working hours since i860. While then 
practically all employees worked sixty hours or over a 
week, in 1904 few of them worked over sixty hours, 
59.17 per cent, of them worked less than sixty hours, and 
22.02 per cent, worked fifty-five hours or less. 

The agitation on the part of organized labor for shorter 
hours continues. Many bills for the reduction of hours 
have been before the legislature since the passage of the 
law of 1887, but all have failed. The policy of the State 
seems to be that, except in the case of women and minors, 
the matter of the regulation of hours is one to be ad- 
justed by free contract between employer and employee 
and by the demands of the trade. The cigar makers 
have secured an eight-hour day and the working day in 
the building trades has been reduced in most cases to 
eight hours, but long hours are still prevalent among 
motormen, bakers, workmen in paper mills, and tailors. 



(b) The Economic Effects of the Restrictions 
ON Child and Woman Labor. 

That these restrictions had real economic effects can- 
not be questioned, but that they produced any consid- 
erable and lasting injuries may be. The impossibility 
of measuring the exact effect of any one of these restric- 
tions upon the development of the manufacturing and 
mechanical industry of Connecticut during a century is 
evident. At most we can only estimate their temporary 



84 American Economic Association [496 

effects upon employers and others, and approximate their 
probable permanent effects upon industry. 

Before 1886 there cannot have been much injury suf- 
fered by parents or families because of restrictions on 
child labor, for these restrictions generally were not en- 
forced, especially if the family were needy. Since that 
time the few cases in which the loss of the child's wages 
otherwise would have brought suffering have been cared 
for mostly by the town, the employer, or charity. The 
required school attendance before 1887 was so small that 
it had little effect upon the child's earning capacity. The 
present minimum age limit (fourteen years) doubtless 
does bring real injury in some cases, but they are com- 
paratively few. The improved economic condition of the 
families has made child labor less a necessity than it, was 
formerly. 

Increasing the age for child labor has resulted in an 
increased demand for adult labor. The injuries suffered 
from the former have been counterbalanced largely by 
the benefits derived from the latter. In families, however, 
where the only laborers were children, this could not be. 
Here was real injury, reparable only by the increased 
efficiency and the better pay of the children later in life. 

Employers suffered, temporarily, from the necessity 
of changing hands when the children went out to school 
or when the minimum age limit was raised. When the 
compulsory educational law was enforced additional 
school houses and teachers were necessary. Often nine- 
tenths of the tax for these fell upon the employers. Then, 
in individual cases, they were injured by their labor sup- 
ply being cut short by the removal of families to other 
places or states because they could not employ the chil- 
dren. 

These injuries came from the educational requirements 



497] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 8^ 

and the minimum age limit on child labor. That the 
more intelligent employers soon came to consider these 
temporary injuries more than offset by the permanent 
benefits they brought them is evident. They built school 
houses and opened schools on their own initiative, at their 
own expense, and upon business principles. They soon, 
of their own accord, refused to employ very young help, 
because older help was considered more economical and 
because they could not afford to have the children of their 
factory population grow up in ignorance. To-day, they 
say that they rarely suffer from the restrictions, because 
the labor of children under fourteen is uneconomical. 
They are too young to assume the necessary responsi- 
bility. 

The more general and far-reaching effects these re- 
strictions may have had will be discussed later. 

The Economic Effects of the Ten Hour Law. — The 
following table shows the variations in the number and 
percentage of women and children employed in the three 
census years, 1880, 1890, and 1900: 





en 
























■<-> -^ fli 
























(3 iS u 


\r> 


vO 


ON 


W 


q 


M 


CO 


o 


oo 


M 




U^ o 


CO 


IT) 


o 


M 


CO 


•^ 


t-^ 


d 


d 


6^ 




u CU 


M 


(N 


CO 


CO 


in 






01 


M 


M 


o 


£-o§ 






















oo 

CO 














































M 


^ 'O 
























It 


o 


^ 


in 


oo 


o 


cn 


in 


o 


t^ 


cn 




o 


in 


Tj- 


in 


ON 




■* 


CSl 


o 


in 




o_ 


oo^ 


•^ 


q_ 


ON 


oo 


■^ 


On 


o_^ 


vO 




'^ 


oo~ 


xn 


en 


M 


c> 


oo" 


cf 


M 






^^ 


"^ 


c^ 




















Cfl 
























-t-" -^ <u 
























C rt <u 
























S5 e- 




t^ 


M 


M 


in 




CJ 


ON 


On 


in 






U-) 


CO 


O 


o 




N 


r^ 


rf 


d 






<N 


•^ 


cn 


vO 












O 


^•se 






















ON 

oo 
















































. "^ 
























1^ 




M 


O 


M 


i_i 




in 


in 


o 


en 






M 


ON 


01 


o 




CO 


'^ 


t^ 


N 






M 


o 


in 


cn 




o_^ 


O 


'^ 


M 




























vO 


lO 


cn 


cn 




cn 


M 










CO 




















^- S 
























C rt (u 
























^«| 


00 


M 


m 


o 


q 


q 


q 


o 


NO 







l_^ 


'*■ 


o' 


ei 


in 


en 


ei 


tA 


•<* 


M* 




<N 


<N 


■^ 


cn 


in 














£-oi 












































Q 
























g 














































w 


























CO 


IT) 


CO 


CO 


in 


ON 


On 


w 


c< 


vO 




o 


o 


•* 


t^ 


CO 


r^ 


t-« 


cn 


CO 


NO 




CO 


o^ 


en 


vO 


in 


in 


^ 


ON 


cn 






en 


cT 


in 


w" 


cn 


iS 


cn 










CO 


^ 








M 
















iG 




-a 






wT 




-§ 










c 








fl 




Cj 










<u 




"y 






V 














a 




X 

vS 






a 




t 










C/l 










.52 














•<-« 


w 


trt 










C/3 










1 


■!-> 


fl 


r^ 




1 




^ 










(U 


(U 


w 


0) 


-1-5 












^ 


s 


a 


J3 tn 


a 


^ 


en 




bA 








•5 3 


.a 

C3 


.22 


.2 13 
11) 


S 


2 s 


1 

5 




1 












^ 




3 

rt 


^•1 






1 








(U 


^ 

T 


1^ 


to 

w 


C5 O. 


g 

T3 


bJb 

a 


.s 


b£ 






S o 


3 


5 «i 








1 




.s 






•55^ 


tuO 


tiS 


C4 (U 


3 


ga 

2 


biO 


rt 


^•§ 


3 












Is 

8 


y 

c 


•S 
2 

3 
C 


3 

3 
O 


■3 8 

3 to 

"o 



3 
3 

S 






^ 


1 


1 


c75 




S 


^ 


c?5 






_^ , 










,„-^ 














a 










^ 



































3 Xi 

3 ^ 

U 3 

■5 S 

ill o 

^ 0) 

H S3 



499] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 87 

Because of the child labor law of 1886 it is impossible 
to determine the part the law of 1887, limiting the hours 
of women and minors under sixteen years of age to ten 
a day, had on the rapid reduction in the number and per- 
centage of wage earners under sixteen years of age be- 
tween 1880 and 1890. In the case of women, however, 
there was but the one law. It seems to have had but 
little influence on the number employed. The percentage 
of women employed rose slightly from 1880 to 1890, and 
declined slightly between 1890 and 1900. This slight 
decline is not significant, and may be due to such a cause 
as the increased immigration of the last few years, with 
its excessive male element. 

It has been shown that the law of 1887 (^h- 6^) had 
no marked influence in restricting the number of hours 
worked per day. Let us assume that it did and that the 
reduction to the ten-hour day was due to this law. Then 
what economic effects has it had ; have Connecticut manu- 
facturers suffered from the effects of the ten-hour day? 
Before a restriction on labor can work injury to manu- 
facturers it must ( I ) cause a decrease in the quantity or 
lower the quality of the product, and (2) it must bear 
unequally on different manufacturers and industries. 

Does the reduction to a ten-hour day decrease the out- 
put? Plainly this is a question that must be answered 
for each type of industry and for each body of employees 
separately. 

In that stage of industry in which little capital and 
equipment is used and in which manual labor is the chief 
factor in production, excessively long hours are evidently 
uneconomical and enhance the cost of the product. But 
in the stage of industry in which production is carried on 
by a large plant and much machinery and in which the 
laborer has been relegated to the comparatively insigni- 
ficant position of a tender or feeder of an automatic ma- 



88 American Economic Association [500 

chine, the case is different. ( i ) While steam is up and 
the machines are in motion it costs less to run them the 
eleventh hour than the average of the first ten. (2) 
When now a man works an extra hour he works not 
himself alone but a machine, which is probably equal to 
ten other men; and while his labor may not be as great 
as in the previous hour that of the machine may. (3) 
While in handiwork a man may work more rapidly if he 
works short hours, and vice versa, here usually he must 
keep pace with his tireless machine. (4) Under the fac- 
tory system the same interest must be earned on the capital 
invested in the plant whether the plant be used or not. 
The more nearly all the time it can be kept running, other 
things being equal, the less will be the interest charge on 
each unit of the product. 

But much depends on the efficiency of the employees. 
If highly efficient they may be able to increase their 
speed sufficiently to make up for any loss due to the 
decrease in the number of hours, without injury to them- 
selves, or to the quality of the product. In such a case 
the shortening of hours is highly profitable. It gives the 
employee time for that intellectual improvement which 
increases his efficiency as a workman and incites him to 
a higher standard of living. This higher standard of 
living, in turn, makes him both a more efficient workman 
and a better customer, since he is now a greater consumer 
of goods. But if the employees have not the intelligence 
and efficiency necessary to higher forms of organization 
and discipline, and to increased speed, the case is differ- 
ent. Then shorter hours must result in a smaller product 
or in an injury to these workmen. They, to compete, 
must make up in time what they lack in efficiency. Longer 
hours may not injure them greatly, increased speed will 
drive them out of the industry. In any case the reduction 
of hours accompanied with increased speed will be hardest 



5oi] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 89 

on those least able to bear the burden, the inefficient, and 
the old. Short hours have a tendency to increase the 
efficiency and raise the standard of living of the better 
class of workmen, who can stand the strain of the in- 
creased speed and diligence, but they have a tendency to 
injure the efficiency and to drive to a lower standard of 
living those to whom this increased speed and diligence 
is impossible. 

Have the skill, efficiency, intelligence and physical 
powers of the Connecticut workman been such that in 
the industries in which he worked he could undergo the 
increased speed and higher organization, made necessar}^ 
by the reduction to the ten-hour day, without injury to 
himself and without affecting the quantity or quality of 
his product? The ingenuity and skill of the Connecticut 
Yankee is far famed. He is intelligent and strong. The 
cool climate in which he works is conducive to energy and 
rapidity. It would seem that here if anywhere a reduc- 
tion to a ten-hour day were possible without a reduction 
in the product or injury to the workman. We have no 
statistical proof of the effect of this reduction on the 
quantity and quality of the product. That it had no 
disastrous effects is evidenced by the fact that in over 
82 per cent, of the industries of the State the reduction 
to ten hours had taken place voluntarily before the pass- 
age of the law of 1887; by the fact that in those industries 
to which the law, in practice, applied most strongly many 
of the manufacturers had voluntarily adopted the ten- 
hour day before the passage of the law ; and by the fur- 
ther fact that to-day employers and employees very gen- 
erally approve the law and, except in rush seasons; live 
up to it, although nobody pretends to enforce it and 
although there are no prosecutions under it. There is 
no complaint on the part of employers that this reduction 
has injured them. Indeed, they have never ceased their 
agitation for greater reductions. 



90 American Economic Association [502 

Before a restriction on labor can work special in jury- 
to manufacturers it must not only cause a decrease in the 
quantity or quality of the product, but must bear un- 
equally on different manufacturers and industries. If it 
bears alike on all industries the relative positions of the 
industries and manufacturers are not affected. Competi- 
tion is as brisk and relative profits are unchanged. But 
competition is now on a higher plane. If, however, such a 
restriction applies only to a part of the manufacturers in 
an industry, it is injurious. Competition between the 
different manufacturers in that industry is no longer on 
the same plane. Likewise, any restriction which de- 
creases the quantity or quality of the product and which 
affects only a part of the local industries injures them. 
For example, where there is no disturbing influence, 
manufacturers will so distribute themselves among the 
different industries of a state that the profits in one in- 
dustry will not differ much from the profits in another 
industry. But if, when capital and talent is so adjusted, 
a restriction is placed upon one industry, profits will no 
longer be the same there as in other industries and the 
manufacturers in that industry will be injured at least 
temporarily. If the restriction be strong enough, and if 
in selling their product these manufacturers must com- 
pete with those not hampered by such a restriction, the 
injury will become permanent, and may even drive the 
restricted industry from the State. 

As the restrictions on child and woman labor in Con- 
necticut bore alike on all the industries in which these 
classes worked, they had no effect on the relative posi- 
tions of these industries. But if in any way these restric- 
tions have been a tax on these industries, then they have 
been injured, not only in their competition with the same 
industry in other states, but also in their position relative 
to the other industries of this State. 



503] 



Labor Legislation of Connecticut 



91 



The Cotton Industry in Connecticut and the South. — If 
the restrictions on child and woman labor in Connecticut 
have been a tax on any of its industries, they have been 
such on the cotton manufacturing industry in competition 
with the same industry in the South, where, until of late, 
there have been no such restrictions. A brief comparison 
of the industry in the two sections will not be unprofitable. 

COTTON MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS AND 
THEIR CAPITAL 9 







Number of 








Establishments 


Capital 




1900 


1890 


1880 


1900 


X890 


New England, 




332 


402 


439 


$272,089,821. 


$243,153,249- 


Southern States 




400 


239 


161 


124,596,874. 


53,827,303. 


North Carolina, 


] 












South Carolina, 












Georgia, and 


1^ 

1 


356 


191 


119 






Alabama, 












Connecticut 




57 


65 


82 


27,367,538.' 


26,431,578.' 



This table shows that while in New England, and espe- 
cially in Connecticut, the number of establishments has 
been declining very rapidly, in the Southern States the 
number has increased even more rapidly. The percent- 
age of increase in the Southern States was 48.4 from 
1880 to 1890, and 67.4 from 1890 to 1900. This in- 
crease, it will be noticed, was almost wholly in the four 
States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and 
Alabama. In New England the percentage of. decrease 
in the number of establishments was 8.4 from 1880 to 
1890, and 17.4 from 1890 to 1900. In Connecticut the 
percentage of decrease was 20.7 from 1880 to 1890, and 
12.3 from 1890 to 1900. In the decade 1890 to 1900, 
there was an increase of 13 1.5 per cent, in the capital 
invested in the Southern mills, as compared with an in- 

' Twelfth U. S. Census, IX, pp. 28, 54- 



92 



American Economic Association 



[504 



crease of 13.5 per cent, in New England, and 3.5 per 
cent, in Connecticut. 

NUMBER OF SPINDLES IN COTTON MILLS^" 





1900 


1890 


1880 


United States, 


19,008,352 


14,188,103 


10,653,435 


New England States, 


12,850,987 


10,836,155 


8,632,087 


Maine, 


841,521 


885,762 


695,924 


Massachusetts, 


7,784,687 


5,824,518 


4,236,084 


New Hampshire, 


1,243,555 


1,195,643 


944,053 


Rhode Island, 


1,880,622 


1,924,486 


1,764,569 


Vermont, 


100,028 


71,591 


55,081 


Connecticut, 


1,000,574 


934,155 


936,376 


Southern States, 


4,298,188 


1,554,000 


542 048" 


Virginia, 


126,827 


94,294 


44,340 


North Carolina, 


1,133,432 


337,786 


92,385 


South Carolina, 


1.431,349 


332,784 


82,334 


Georgia, 


815,545 


445,452 


198,656 


Kentucky, 


66,633 


42,942 


9,022 


Tennessee, 


123,896 


97,524 


35,736 


Alabama, 


411,328 


79,234 


49,432 


Mississippi, 


75,122 


57,004 


18,568 


Arkansas, 


9,700 


5,780 




Louisiana, 


55,600 


46,200 


. . . . 


Texas, 


48,756 


15,000 


.... 



The above table shows that from 1890 to 1900 there 
was an increase of 2,014,832 spindles, or 18.6 per cent., 
in New England; and an increase of 2,744,188 spindles, 
or 176.6 per cent., in the Southern States. If we con- 
sider only North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and 
Alabama, the increase in the number of spindles was 
2,596,398, or 217.2 per cent.^^ In Connecticut the in- 

^" Twelfth U. S. Census, IX, Part III, p. 46. 

"Includes 11,575 spindles reported by States other than those 
named. 

" " . . . Not only has the number of spindles in the Southern 
States become nearly three-fold that reported in 1890, but the 
spindles themselves are for the most part of the latest and most 
efficient types."— Twelfth Census, U. S., Vol. IX, Part III, p. 46. 



505] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 93 

crease was only 7.1 per cent. Thus Connecticut is de- 
creasing in number of establishments much more rapidly 
than New England as a whole, and is increasing in per- 
centage of spindles much less rapidly. Maine and Rhode 
Island show an actual decrease in the number of spindles. 

Of the increase in the number of employees in the cot- 
ton industry in the United States from 1890 to 1900 
three-fourths of the whole was in the Southern States. ^^ 

The foregoing tables show that the cotton industry in 
the South, in number of establishments, in capital in- 
vested, and in the number of spindles operated is having 
a phenomenal growth ; while in New England, and espe- 
cially in Connecticut, the number of establishments is 
declining, and the capital invested and the number of 
spindles operated is increasing but slowly. Has this dif- 
ference in the rapidity of the development of the industry 
between Connecticut and the South been due to legal 
restrictions imposed on child and woman labor in Con- 
necticut ? We have been unable to show that Connecticut 
manufacturers have suffered permanent injury from the 
effects of shorter hours or from the limitations placed on 
child labor. They are almost unanimous in saying that 
the labor of children under fourteen years of age is not 
profitable, and that they have not suffered from the re- 
strictions placed on it. 

Have not existing differences between Connecticut and 
the South, in hours of labor and in child and woman 
labor, come rather from a difference in the people them- 
selves and from the different economic conditions under 
which they live, than from any legal restrictions? The 
people of Connecticut are more highly educated than 
those of the South, and their economic condition is better. 
These things combined have caused them to set up for 
themselves a higher standard of living than is prevalent 



"/&tU,p. 31. 



94 American Economic Association [506 

in the South. The factory system has been much longer 
estabhshed in Connecticut and its evils are much more 
fully appreciated. The people have had time to adjust 
themselves to the new conditions. There has been time 
for the growth of a strong public opinion against the 
evils of long hours and child labor. In the South, on 
the other hand, the lower intelligence and the poorer 
economic condition of the people have resulted in a lower 
standard of living; the evils of child and woman labor 
have not yet been fully realized; the people are still in 
transition from the farm to the factory; and opinions in 
regard to the evils of factory life have not yet become 
crystallized into active public opinion. The Connecticut 
people, guided by their higher intelligence and a century 
of experience, and aided by their better economic condi- 
tion, would naturally have set up for themselves a dif- 
ferent standard than that of the Southern people. Were 
all legal restrictions removed, or had they never existed, 
there would still be a different standard as to hours of 
labor and child labor and education. 

Has this higher standard the Connecticut people have 
set up for themselves been detrimental to Connecticut 
industry? We have failed to find proof that it has been 
permanently so. The skill and inventive genius of the 
Yankee mechanic are unsurpassed. These, far more than 
her natural resources, have won for Connecticut her 
present high industrial position. While in the Southern 
cotton mill the number of spindles to each wage earner is 
but 44.09, in Connecticut it is 75.84, or over one and 
two-thirds times as many. After due allowance is made 
for the larger number of children employed in the South- 
ern mills, the Connecticut mill hand is still far in the lead 
in the number of spindles operated. 

If the phenomenal growth of the cotton manufacturing 
industry in the South, as compared with its growth in 



507] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 95 

Connecticut, is not due to the legal restrictions or, pri- 
marily, to the higher standard of living in Connecticut, 
to what is it due? In the opinion of the writer this 
difference must be explained largely by the real advan- 
tages the Southern manufacturer has possessed in natural, 
economic and social conditions. 

Before the advent of the cotton mills there was little 
manufacturing in the South. These mills entered prac- 
tically a virgin and unbroken field. Here they found 
numerous suitable building sites, and abundant water 
power. The land was cheap. The mildness of the cli- 
mate did not require that the buildings be expensive 
structures. In these buildings, however, with some ex- 
ceptions, was installed the latest and most improved ma- 
chinery.^* So anxious were the Southern people to secure 
the mills that often taxes were remitted for a term of 
years. ^* Railroads also favored them.^* Where fuel was 
used often it was cheaper than in New England. The 
supply of cotton was abundant and close at hand. Usu- 
ally it has cost less in the South than in New England^ as 
is shown by the following figures : 

Cost per Pound of Cotton Consumed." 

1900. 1890. 1880. 

United States 6.67c 10.36c ii-SQc 

New England States... 6.67 10.60 11.67 

Southern States 6.64 977 iO-52 

Connecticut 6.91'' 10.76 11.99 

In addition to these advantages, the first mills in the 
South found ready at hand a large supply of surplus, 
native laborers, anxious to try factory life. Their stand- 
ard of living was low and it cost them little to live in this 
warm climate. Whole families were employed ; and what 

"Twelfth Census, U. S., Vol. IX, Part III, p. 29. 

"7&id,p. 35- 

^"In 1900 Connecticut paid more per pound than any state except 

New York. 



96 American Economic Association [508 

they lacked in skill and speed was made up by long hours, 
child labor, and low wages. 

With all these natural advantages, with new plants 
equipped mainly with the latest machinery, with a cheap 
power and no taxes, with a low price for cotton, and with 
an abundant supply of cheap labor, these first cotton mills 
in the South were soon able to declare large dividends. 
This caused an increased investment and a multiplication 
of mills. ^"^ And so the process went on from year to year. 
It will continue so long as the South retains the advan- 
tages which have been such a boon to the industry there. 
Are these advantages permanent ? 

A glance at the advantages enumerated shows that most 
of them are not permanent — that they are only temporary 
advantages in the nature of the prizes to be picked up in 
any unexplored field, or in the nature of a patrimony that 
may be squandered. Most of the superior building sites 
with good water power will soon be utilized. Exemption 
from taxes is already a thing of the past. The machinery 
installed in the first mills is fast becoming old. The sur- 
plus labor has been used up. The factory has ceased to 
have greater attraction for the laboring people than the 
farm. Already labor is so scarce that manufacturers are 
having trouble in securing help to run the machinery now 
installed. ^^ New mills will require new hands. At pres- 
ent the supply in the South is being recruited mainly 
from the natural increase of the native population. 
Northern mill hands seldom go South, foreign immi- 
grants go to the North and to the Northwest. If the 
South must continue to depend on her own native popu- 
lation for help, the further expansion of the industry 



" Twelfth Census, U. S., Vol. IX, Part III, p. 29. 

^« Twelfth Census, U. S., Vol. IX, Part III, pp. 32, 331 Financial 
Supplement, N. Y. Herald, Jan. i, 1906; Marie VanVorst, "The 
Woman Who Toils," p. 222. 



509] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 97 

there must be much less rapid than in the past. In this 
respect New England with her rapidly increasing foreign 
immigration bids fair to have a distinct advantage. 

Then, in the South, the standard of living, and the rate 
of wages are rising. The Southern people are beginning 
to realize the evils of long hours and child labor,^^ and 
these are being restricted by law. Public opinion is now 
demanding that the patrimony of health and strength 
bequeathed to the present generation be not all squand- 
ered in the factories. It has already become evident in 
many mill towns in the South that if this squandering 
process continues the industry will suffer a greater injury 
from it than any temporary advantage it may have gained 
by child labor and long hours. 

What permanent advantages, then, has the South over 
the North? Mainly these three: (i) Nearness to the 
cotton fields; (2) less costly land for building sites ;^^ and 
(3) the doubtful one of less costly mill buildings. The 
first of these is the only one of great importance, and the 
gradual decline in transportation rates is making it less 
important every day. 

These permanent advantages of the South do not seem 
to be of sufficient magnitude finally to drive the cotton 
industry from New England. Are they not, and may 
they not continue to be, largely offset by the greater skill 
and efficiency of the Northern operative, and by the more 
elastic labor supply of the North ? 

Notwithstanding the wonderful development of the 
cotton manufacturing industry of the South, the industry 
in New England has kept up a steady and healthy 



"Marie Van Vorst, "The Woman Who Toils," p. 274; Robt. 
Hunter, "Poverty," pp. 229-234. 

^° From 1890 to 1900 mill site land decreased in value 13.2 per cent, 
in the New England States, while in the Southern States it increased 
in value 30.8 per cent. — Twelfth Census, U. S., IX, Part III, p. 30. 



98 American Economic Association [510 

growth and is now in a prosperous condition. While the 
number of its mills has declined the number of spindles 
to the mill has increased very rapidly. There has been, 
also, a steady increase in the total number of spindles 
operated and in the amount of capital invested, and ''it 
still remains true that the largest and densest concentra- 
tion of cotton manufacturing in the United States is 
found in Southern New England." 'Tn round numbers 
one-third of all the spindles in the United States are in 
the factories located within thirty miles of Providence, 
Rhode Island. In fact, 30.3 per cent, of all the cotton 
spindles in the United States were operated in 1900 in 
the two adjoining counties of Bristol, Massachusetts, and 
Providence, Rhode Island. Moreover, the spindles of 
Providence County, the smaller of the two, . . . out- 
number . . . those of any Southern State except 
South Carolina."^^ In Connecticut, from 1890 to 1900, 
there was an increase of 7.1 per cent, in the number of 
spindles operated, and 3.5 per cent, in the amount of 
capital invested. In 1900 she held the same rank as a 
textile manufacturing State that she did in 1890. The 
industry in the State to-day is in a prosperous condition. 
Very few of the employers think Connecticut is suffering 
in competition with the South because of the restrictions 
on child and woman labor. 

In view of the fact that the cotton manufacturing in- 
dustry in Connecticut has continued a steady growth 
while the South has been reaping the benefits of the 
temporary advantages we have enumerated, there seems 
little reason for apprehension lest it cease to prosper after 
these temporary advantages are gone. But prophecies 
are dangerous, the unexpected often happens. How much 
will Connecticut be injured even if she does have to give 
up entirely her cotton manufacturing? 

^Commercial and Financial Chronicle, Vol. 75, p. z^y. (From 
Twelfth Census, U. S., Vol. IX, p. 29.) 



5ii] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 



99 



Relative Importance of the Cotton Industry in Connecticut, 

1900.^ 

Per cent of Total of Manufac- 
turing and Mechanical Industries 

Number of establishments 0.6 

Capital invested 8.7 

Wage earners 5.3 

Value of product 4.2 

Women over 16 employed (5,348) 12.5 

Children under 16 employed (932) 26.8 

These figures show that cotton manufacture equals in 
importance about six per cent, of the total for the manu- 
facturing and mechanical industries of the State. It is 
not making the progress that the different metal indus- 
tries are and is not yielding such large profits. ^^ It seems 
less able than these industries to compete in the world 
markets. Important as it is, were it gradually crowded 
out, the injury to the State would not be disastrous. The 
capital and labor probably would not go South so much 
as into the better paying industries of the State. ^* Prob- 
ably its greatest injury would be the throwing out of 
employment the 5,348 women and the 932 children now 
employed in the industry. Much of the work in cotton 
mills seems to be adapted to their abilities, and it might 
be difficult for them to find as suitable employment in the 
other industries. 

=^From Twelfth Census, U. S., Vol. VIII, p. 75; and Vol. IX, p. 54. 

^Twelfth Census, U. S., Vol. VIII; Reports of Conn. Bureau of 
Labor Statistics. 

^ See "The Present Status of Cotton and Cotton Manufacturing 
in the United States," Edward Atkinson, Yale Review, VII: 129, 
Aug., 1898, especially pp. 148-151. 



LOFC. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND THE EMPLOYER'S 
LIABILITY. 

There are in Connecticut five laws protecting the em- 
ployee in his right of free contract with his employer. 
They recognize the employee as the weaker party to the 
employment contract, and seek to prevent the employer 
taking advantage of his semi-dependent position to re- 
strain him in the full and free exercise of all his rights. 

Influencing the Vote of an Employee. — The first of 
these laws (1867, ch. 152, sec. 2) attempts to secure the 
employee in his right to vote. It provides that any em- 
ployer who shall attempt to influence the vote of an 
operative by threats of withholding employment from 
him, or by promises of employment, or who shall dismiss 
any operative because of any vote he may have given, 
shall be punished by a fine of from one to five hundred 
dollars, or by imprisonment from six to twelve months, 
or both. The law is practically the same in the revision 
of 1875 (G. S. Title 20, ch. 9, sec. 28). ^ In 1877 (ch. 
146) the time during which it was illegal to influence the 
vote of an employee was extended to "at or within sixty 
days prior" to an election. The law is essentially the 
same to-day (G. S. 1902, sec. 1700). 

^"The workingmen need a secret ballot. There is altogether too 
much intimidation. I hear of cases of it all over the State. It is 
common in both parties. Men vote too often as they are told, be- 
cause they are afraid to vote according to their convictions. A secret 
ballot would have a good moral effect in diminishing bribery." — 
Representative Hunie in The New Haven Evening Register, Dec. 
22, 1886. 

100 [512 



513] Labor Legislation of Connecticut loi 

Connecticut's antiquated system of town representation 
and her loose election laws long furnished the incentive 
and the opportunity for much corruption at the polls. In 
his message to the legislature in 1877 the Governor said: 

''The corrupt practices which have recently crept into 
use in our elections induce me to call your attention to the 
necessity of providing further safeguards for the protec- 
tion and purity of the franchise of suffrage. I allude to 
the purchase and sale of votes, and the fraud and undue 
influence practiced upon the voter. This evil — which is 
too common at best — has been increasing of late from 
year to year. It is by no manner of means confined to 
the cities and large towns ; my belief is that in some form 
or other, and to a greater or less extent, it infests nearly 
all the municipalities of the State. At all events the 
prevalence of these practices, and the silence of good men 
in regard to them, are a sad commentary on the morals 
of politics. . . . But the statutes on this subject (G. S. 
1875, Title 20, ch. 9, sec. 28) have become a dead letter 
and are violated, in some places secretly, in others openly, 
and everywhere with impunity." 

Special attempts illegally to influence the votes of em- 
ployees as such were never common. Such attempts were 
usually limited to such things as instructions as to how 
they should vote, placed on their pay envelopes just before 
elections, parades in which the employees were encour- 
aged to join, and badges which they were given to wear. 
Of late years there have been few complaints of intimida- 
tion. Loose ballot laws long made abuses possible and 
regulation necessary. Before 1889 (ch. 247) there was 
no secret or official ballot. About the only regulation 
was that the ballot be plainly written or printed on a 
single sheet of white paper. Ballots were made out and 
voted in public. The law of 1889 provided for an official 
ballot and voting booths. 

This law, however, did not stop vote buying and cor- 
ruption at elections. The Governor's message to the 
legislature in 1893 says of it: 



i02 American Economic Association [514 

*'This law, while working beneficially in many respects, 
has upon trial been found to be defective, and there is 
need of further legislation to remove some of the techni- 
calities of the law ; to simplify it, so that persons of ordi- 
nary intelligence can readily understand its provisions." 
In 1895 the Governor said in his message: 
''The present law enables the voter to follow his own 
preference as to men and measures in casting his ballot 
without allowing any other person to know how he votes ; 
while at the same time its provisions are such that the 
vote-seller can furnish fairly clear evidence to the vote- 
buyer that the bargain between them has been observed." 
The Governor's message in 1901 said: 
'Tf you can discover any combination of words which, 
enacted into a law, will stop the buying and selling of 
votes, you should lose no time in making such discovery, 
for it is, I fear, the general impression that much of the 
legislation now on the statute books looking to that end, 
in reality does little more than encourage falsehood and 
deception." 

Notice of Intention to Leave Employment. — The sec- 
ond of these laws was passed in 1885 (ch. y2). It pro- 
vides that : 

''Any person or corporation . . . that requires from 
employees, under penalty of a part of the wages earned 
by them, a notice of intention to leave such employment, 
shall be liable to the payment of a like forfeiture, to be 
recovered in an action on this statute, if such employees 
are discharged without similar notice, except for inca- 
pacity or misconduct, or in cases of a general suspension 
of labor by such employer." 

This law was very weak. The employer could still 
require an unjust forfeiture at his own option, and could 
be compelled to forfeit a like amount only after a suit in 
which it must be shown that the discharge was not "for 
incapacity or misconduct." There was little danger of a 
suit for so small an amount. The law was repealed the 
next year and it was enacted ( 1886, ch. 108) that no part 



515] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 103 

of the wages of an employee should be withheld because 
of any agreement, expressed or implied, requiring notice 
before leaving the employment, and the penalty for viola- 
tion was fixed at fifty dollars. The law remains practi- 
cally the same to-day (G. S. 1902, sec. 4694). 

In a case tried under this act in 1890, an agreement 
between an employer and his employee that either of 
them should give the other two week's notice before ter- 
minating their contract, under forfeit of the amount of 
two weeks' wages, was held to be legal and binding.^ 
This decision seems directly contrary to the law. Ac- 
cording to it if the agreement to give notice is mutual 
between the employer and the employee, it is legal. 

The following quotation, copied from a notice still 
hanging in one of the mill offices of the State, and dated 
July I, 1888, shows that there were attempts to evade 
this law : 

"Any one intending to leave the employment of the 
company must give the agent or the overseer at least two 
weeks' notice of the fact. Those who neglect to do so 
are not considered as entitled to their wages f'^ 

To-day there are few violations of the law. 

Joining Labor Unions. — In 1899 (ch. 170) it was en- 
acted that any employer who should coerce or compel, or 
attempt to coerce or compel, any employee to enter into 
an agreement, either verbal or written, that, as a condi- 
tion of retaining his position, he would not join any 
labor organization, should be fined not more than two 
hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months. 
The law is the same in the revision of 1902 (G. S. sec. 
1297). 

This law was secured by the representatives of organ- 
ized labor. It passed the Senate without debate and met 

^ Pierce v. Whittlesey, 58 Conn., 107-108. 
^The italics are mine. 



I04 American Economic Association [516 

but little opposition in the House. The purpose of the 
law is to secure laboring men in their right to organize, 
without being discriminated against.* Previous to 1899 
there had been several ineffectual attempts to secure such 
a law. One of the bills (H. B. 103, 1897) made it un- 
lawful, also, for an employer to require an agreement not 
to join a labor union, as one of the conditions of giving 
employment. The labor unions wish the present law to be 
amended to this effect. 

In New York a similar law, which prohibited the em- 
ployer from exacting from the applicant, as a condition 
of securing employment, an agreement not to become a 
member of a labor organization, was recently declared 
unconstitutional.^ In the decision it was held that : 

*'The statute, however, clearly discriminates in favor 
of labor unions by forbidding an employer either to im- 
pose as a condition of employment that the employee shall 
sever his relations with the union, or, if not a union man, 
shall not join a union. In the making of such a contract 
both the employer and the employee are acting within 
their strict legal rights." 

It is questionable whether the Connecticut law, if 
tested, would not meet the same fate as has the New 
York law. This law seems to be contrary to the legisla- 
tive policy of Connecticut, not to interfere in the matter 
of free contract between employers and their adult male 
employees. The right of laborers to organize must be 
held inviolable, but if the men claim the right to terminate 
their contract unless the employer consents to make the 
shop union, to the employer should be granted the right 

*"When the workmen in the South Norwalk Lock Company's 
Works presented themselves for their wages on Saturday, each one 
was asked if he belonged to a certain labor organization which was 
known to exist in that city. If they were truthful and courageous 
they said they were and six men were discharged because they said 
'Yes.' " — New Haven Evening Register, July 13, 1885, p. i. 

' People V. Harry Marcus (1906). 



517] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 105 

to terminate the contract unless they will consent to make 
the shop non-union. The principle of ''equal rights" 
applies here as well as elsewhere. 

The ''Padrone Law/' — For several years previous to 
1895 there were, in certain sections of the State, many 
ignorant foreign laborers. These were mainly French 
and Italian. They seldom came to the State on their 
own resources. The French often came under contract 
with, or influence of, employment companies. The Ital- 
ians often came in rudely organized bodies under the 
leadership of a ''padrone," who arranged for their wages 
and pay. Neither of these classes, or the Hungarians 
and Poles who came later, knew English, and they ac- 
quired knowledge of it slowly. Their poverty, and their 
ignorance of the language, made them very dependent on 
their leaders and employers. The result was that unscru- 
pulous employers and "padrones" often took advantage 
of their helplessness and^ defrauded them of their wages. 
In some cases their wages were refused them outright, 
and if they objected they were dismissed summarily and 
another gang secured. In other cases the employer de- 
frauded them by overcharging them for board, fuel and 
supplies.^ They did not know enough and had not money 
enough to sue for their rights under the law.^ 

To remedy these conditions, in 1895 (ch. 295) the 
commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics was 



^ "The system of charges used permits extortion of the worst kind. 
Each man is known by number and not by name. A man's number 
is entered in the day-book, and any purchase that he may make is 
charged. . . . The name of the article and date of purchase 
are not entered. When the day of settlement comes, if ever, he is 
confronted with this account and told that he is in debt for the full 
amount of his wages, or, at least, a mere pittance of fifty or seventy- 
five cents is given him, or possibly enough to carry him out of 
town." — Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1896, p. 270. 

^ Reports Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1885, p. 60; 1895, p. 11 ; 
1896, p. 270. 



io6 American Economic Association [518 

authorized to appoint persons familiar with the languages 
of these alien laborers, to inform them as to their right 
of contract under the laws of the State and to prevent 
illegal advantage being taken of them by reason of their 
ignorance, credulity, or want of knowledge of the Eng- 
lish language. These agents were to be temporary only, 
and their total expense was not to exceed three hundred 
dollars a year. The illegal reception and retention of 
money due alien laborers was made punishable by a fine 
of one hundred dollars or imprisonment for one year, or 
both. The law is practically the same in the revision of 
1902 (G. S. sec. 4607). 

Agents were appointed under this law and their efforts 
were effective of some good, but the act failed to accom- 
plish what was expected of it. All the agents could do 
was to advise the alien laborers as to what their rights 
were, and as to what action they should take to secure the 
payment of their wages. They had no authority to 
prosecute, or to collect claims, and the laborers usually 
were too poor to pay a lawyer's fee. Abuses declined, 
but there were many bad cases the agents could not reach 
under the law.^ Often agents could not be appointed 
when needed because of a lack of funds. ^ In 1895, and 

^"J- B., a Pole, . . . worked for one . . . from December 
23rd, 1891, to August 6th, 1895, at the rate of $18 per month. Early 
in the term of his employment he got some money, but latterly almost 
none, until at the time he left . . . owed him $282.60. This man 
. . . has a record for just this sort of work. About a year ago 
... he had four or five men who worked for him all summer and 
got no money and but poor food, and then in the fall were set adrift 
and were found later by some of their fellow countrymen living on 
fruit, etc., in the woods and almost starving. . . . hires these men 
to work for him, always getting very green men. When they find 
him out he turns them adrift." A State's attorney, speaking of this 
case, said, "I know of no statute upon which this man can be prose- 
cuted. It seems, however, to be a case which calls for remedial 
legislation." — Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1895, p. 12. 

^ Ibid., 1900, p. 15. 



519] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 107 

again in 1896, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics recommended the enactment of a law that would 
cover these cases. Legislation was delayed, however, 
until 1 90 1, when, as a result of a very bad case in Bridge- 
port in 1900, a new law was passed. 

This Bridgeport case is worthy of notice. Contractors 
on railroad improvements there had employed the city 
sheriff of Bridgeport and an Italian ''padrone" of Boston 
to furnish them Italian laborers. The sheriff's men were 
to continue to live in their own homes. No stipulation 
was made as to the men furnished by the "padrone". 
Soon the men supplied by the sheriff began to be dis- 
charged by the bosses in charge of the gangs, on the 
ground that they were incompetent. The ''padrone's" 
men were housed on the shanty plan in an old carriage 
shop, as many as seventy-five lodging there at one time. 
The "barracks" were fitted up with small plank bunks 
and straw bags, for which the Italians were charged 
$1.25 per month each. "Two men were placed in a space 
too small for one, and two small stoves afforded the only 
cooking facilities. The sanitary conditions were de- 
plorable. The prices charged for provisions in some 
cases exceeded the market price by 100 per cent." "Sev- 
eral of the men also stated that they had been informed 
that if they lived in the barracks it would be easy to 
obtain work, otherwise not. This they found out by 
experience. "^^ 

To prevent the evils disclosed by this case a new law 
was passed in 1901 (ch. 68). It prohibits contractors, 
foremen, superintendents and supervisors of labor from 
exacting or receiving fees, rewards or voluntary contri- 
butions from those they employ; provides for the inspec- 
tion by local health officers of all lodging places provided 



Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1900, pp. 221-224. 



io8 American Economic Association [520 

by employers for their employees ; and imposes a penalty 
upon employers for overcharging their laborers for arti- 
cles sold them. 

There have been few complaints of violations of this 
law.^^ There are rumors, however, that there are still 
instances of foremen receiving pay for furnishing em- 
ployment, but proof of this, sufficient to warrant prosecu- 
tion, is difficult to secure. There have been but one or 
two convictions. 

Company Stores and Tenements. — The law of 1901, 
just discussed, was passed to regulate the treatment of 
their laborers by contractors on railroads, bridge-build- 
ing, etc. Its provisions, however, are general and apply 
also to the long established manufacturing companies. 

Company stores, company tenements, and company 
boarding houses were once quite common among the 
establishments in certain industries of the State. Then, 
often, they were a necessity, as frequently the mills were 
isolated by having to locate where they could secure good 
water power. In many cases they are a necessity still, 
but the practice of having them where not necessary has 
been declining rapidly. In 1886 ^'one-half of all (con- 
cerns) received more or less income from rent that was 
deducted from wages." In 1892, 23.99 P^^ cent, of the 
establishments made partial payment of wages in rent. 



""The aversion of the overseers to the State [free public employ- 
ment] officers was at length explained in an accidental manner. It 
was learned that a widespread practice exists among the overseers 
of blackmailing the men who work under them — of compelling them 
to pay tribute for the privilege of employment. Investigation showed 
that its extent is alarming; and that the evils of this oppression are 
second only to those indulged in by private intelligence offices. The 
laborer with self-respect and manhood enough to refuse to be black- 
mailed is thereby placed at a disadvantage ; while the mills and shops 
are filled with employees, not the most skilled and able, but the most 
easily gouged." — Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901, 
p. 193. 



52i] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 109 

5.27 per cent, partial payment in board, and 1.94 per cent, 
partial payment in store orders. In Windham and Tol- 
land counties, where the textile industry is prominent, 
over half of the factories rented tenements, and 28.81 
per cent, of those in Tolland and 22.37 per cent, of those 
in Windham county conducted boarding houses. In 
Windham county 21.05 P^^ cent, of the manufacturers 
gave store orders to their employees, while in Tolland 
county 5.08 per cent, gave such orders. In i860, 15.24 
per cent, of the establishments reporting in the State were 
making partial payments of wages in store orders, in 
1880 the per cent, making such payments was only 5.14, 
and by 1892 it had fallen to 1.94.^^ 

Many of the companies in the textile manufacturing 
districts still have their tenements, but company stores 
are few and company boarding houses are not comimon. 

In 1886 it was reported that there were many com- 
plaints against company stores. But the evils complained 
of were mainly those common to credit stores, and were 
seldom due to the fact that the store was run by the 
company. Yet, in cases, it was claimed that pressure was 
used to cause operatives to trade at the company's store; 
and some companies "organized systems of coupon pay- 
ment, coming very close to the limit of the 'Truck Acts' 
of the United States."^^ 

There is no complaint against the present management 
of the company stores, tenements and boarding houses 
in the State. The employees trade where they choose, 
and excessive prices are not complained of. The tene- 
ments are mostly plain but substantial one-story or two- 
story frame buildings, accommodating from two to four 
families. The rents seem to be lower than the rents of 
similar houses in the towns where they are located. A 

"^Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1893, pp. 56-61. 
^^Ihid., 1886, p. xlvi. 



no American Economic Association [522 

number of inquiries made by the writer in one cotton 
mill town showed that the rents there averaged about 
twenty cents per week per room.^^ Some companies 
remit all rents when the mills close down ; and often the 
tenements are not in themselves a profitable investment. 
One company furnishes board and room at $2.50 a week 
for women, and $3.50 a week for men. This is less than 
it costs the company. 

Importation of Laborers. — In view of the present 
United States laws prohibiting the importation of con- 
tract laborers, it is interesting to find that it is only a 
few decades since such importation was encouraged to 
the extent that a State law was passed to protect the 
interests of those who imported laborers under contract. 
In 1865 (ch. 10) such a law provided, that all contracts 
entered into in any foreign country by which any person 
emigrating to this country should pledge the wages of his 
labor, not exceeding one-half thereof, to any person, to 
repay the expenses of his transportation, should be as 
valid and binding as if made in this State. Similar con- 
tracts entered into with immigrants after their arrival in 
this country were niade valid in the same manner. If 
any such immigrant failed to enter the service of the 
person or corporation that had paid the expenses of his 
transportation, or left such service before repaying them, 
and went to serve another, the amount so due became a 
lien upon his wages. This right of lien was extended to 
residents of States that had enacted or should enact sim- 
ilar laws. 

This law made its last appearance in the revision of 
1866 (G. S. Title 36). 

The Employer's Liability. — Connecticut has not a reg- 
ular employer's liability act. For many years the labor 

" Sixty-three cases reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 
1886 paid an average of $4.37 a month for company tenements. 



523] Labor Legislation of Connecticut m 

unions have tried to secure the passage of such an act, and 
numerous bills have been before the legislature for that 
purpose, but they have always been rejected. In 1901, 
however, a half-way measure defining the duty of the 
master to his servant and entitled "An Act Concerning 
the Liability of Employers" was passed. Before this the 
many cases that arose were tried under the Common Law. 
As the present law is but the enactment of a few of the 
principles previously established by these Common Law 
decisions, a statement of their chief points will be given 
before that law is discussed.^^ 

The Master's Duty. — "It is the master's duty to exer- 
cise reasonable care to provide for his servant a reason- 
ably safe place in which to work, reasonably safe appli- 
ances and instrumentalities for his work, and fit and 
competent persons as his co-laborers."^® He shall exer- 
cise reasonable care in keeping the appliances in a safe 
condition,^'^ and shall furnish his employee with material 
which is reasonably safe.^^ He does not warrant the 
goodness of such material, but he must exercise reason- 
able care in its selection. ^^ 

Reasonable care is care proportionate to the danger.^^ 
"In dangerous situations ordinary care means great 
care."^^ "Negligence is the non-performance or the in- 



" Only a sufficient number of cases have been cited to show the 
trend of the decisions, 

" McElligott V. Randolph, 61 Conn., 161 ; Sullivan v. N. Y., N. H. 
& H. R. R. Co., 62 Conn., 215; Wilson v. Willimantic Linen Co., 50 
Conn., 457 ; Farrell v. Eastern Machinery Co., 77 Conn., 848 ; Finken 
V. Elm City Brass Co., JZ Conn., 424. 

" Rinicotti v. O'Brien Contracting Co., 77 Conn., 622. 

"Curelli v, Jackson, 77 Conn., 120; O'Keefe v. National Folding 
Box and Paper Co., 66 Conn., 38. 

" Dexter v. McCready, 54 Conn., 172, 173. 

"Knowles v. Crampton, 55 Conn., 344; Mulligan v. New Britain, 
69 Conn., 96 ; Sprague v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co., 68 Conn., 353. 



112 American Economic Association [524 

adequate performance of a legal duty."^^ It signifies a 
want of care by one having no intention to injure.^^ It is 
a "breach of duty, unintentional and proximately pro- 
ducing injury to another possessing equal rights."-^ 

Vice Principal and Fellow Servant. — The performance 
of a particular act which it is the duty of the employer to 
perform makes of the servant a vice principal as to that 
act, and he is not then a fellow-servant with his co- 
laborers.^^ Thus in some of his acts he may be a vice 
principal while in others of his acts he is simply a fellow- 
servant.^^ The act of a servant, pursuant to his master's 
express command, or in the regular course of his em- 
ployment, is the act of the master. "^^ The character of 
the duty determines whether the negligence of a servant 
was that of a vice principal or of a fellow-servant.^'^ The 
fellow-servant rule does not apply where the master, 
being bound to provide a safe place and safe appliances, 
does not attend to it personally but employs another who 
does it negligently.^^ Laborers have been held to be 
fellow-servants if they have a common employer, are 
working for the accomplishment of the same general 
object, are acting in one common service, and receive 
their compensation from the same source.^^ 



^O'Neil V. East Windsor, 63 Conn,, 153; Schoonmaker v. Albert- 
son & Douglass Machine Co., 51 Conn., 892; Beers v. B. & A. R. R. 
Co., 67 Conn., 426. 

=^ Pitkin V. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co., 64 Conn., 490. 

" Farrell v. Waterbury H. R. R. Co., 60 Conn, 246. 

==* Sullivan v. N. Y., N. H. and H. R. R. Co., 62 Conn., 215; Kelly 
Admr. v. New Haven Steamboat Co., 74 Conn., 343. 

^ McElligott V Randolph, 61 Conn., 164. 

^^ Santo V. Maynard, 57 Conn., 160 ; Church v. Mansfield, 20 
Conn., 287. 

^^ Brennan v. Berlin Iron Bridge Co., 74 Conn., 389. 

'^ Wilson V. Willimantic Linen Co., 50 Conn., 457 ; Gerrish v. New 
Haven Ice Co., 63 Conn., 17 ; State v. McKee, 73 Conn., 19. 

" Sullivan v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 62 Conn., 214. 



525] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 113 

Master's Liability. — If a master exercises due diligence 
in selecting servants and furnishes them with a safe place 
in which to work and with suitable means and machinery 
for doing the work he is not answerable for an injury 
to one of them in consequence of the negligence of a 
fellow-servant, or his failure properly to use the appli- 
ances provided. ^^ The master is not responsible for an 
injury to one workman caused by negligence of another 
in the operation of a machine at which both are work- 
ing ;^^ but he "is responsible for an injury produced by 
the combined negligence of himself and a fellow-servant 
of the injured employee/'^^ 

Contributory Negligence. — To be in the relation of a 
servant to the master the employee must be acting in the 
place of the employer, in accordance with and represent- 
ing his will.^^ The servant must use ordinary care, but 
he cannot be expected to notice the latent defects of the 
machinery at which he is working, or any defects that are 
not obvious to one not an expert in machinery.^* To be 
contributorily negligent an employee must fail to exercise 
ordinary care.^^ Contributory negligence "is the doing 
or omitting to do that which, under the circumstances, a 
reasonable man would not have done or would not have 
omitted to do to avoid injury resulting to himself from 
the negligence of the defendant."^^ "In a case for negli- 



'"Griswold V. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co, 53 Conn., 389; Nolan v. 
N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 70 Conn, 159; McQueeny v. Norcross, 
75 Conn, 381 ; Kelly, Admr, v. New Haven Steamboat Co., 74 Conn, 
343; Burke v. Norwich & Worcester R. R. Co., 34 Conn., 479; 
Bassett v. N. & W. R. R. Co., 19 Law Rep., 55 (Superior Court). 

*^ Leonard v. Mallory, 75 Conn, 433. 

"^Wilson V. Willimantic Linen Co., 50 Conn., 466. 

^^ Corbin v. American Mills, 27 Conn., 279. 

^* Wilson V. Willimantic Linen Co., 50 Conn., 468. 

"" Daley v. N. & W. R. R. Co., 26 Conn., 597 ; Beers v. Housatonic 
R. R. Co., 19 Conn., 571. 

■" Hubbard v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 72 Conn., 27. 



114 American Economic Association [526 

gent injury, proof of contributory negligence is a perfect 
defense."^"^ The principle is well settled that if the plain- 
tiff has been guilty of a want of ordinary care, contribu- 
tory to the production of an injury, he cannot recover, 
although the defendant has been guilty of gross and 
culpable negligence, if the act was not intentional and 
wanton. ^^ 

The employee assumes the obvious dangers,^ ^ and the 
ordinary risks of the business.^^ *'A11 ordinary risks 
incident to the service, including those resulting from the 
carelessness of fellow-servants, are assumed by the em- 
ployee, and for these the employer is not responsible."^^ 

A child eight years of age is not necessarily incapable 
of contributory negligence; but in such cases ordinary 
care ''means such care as may reasonably be expected of 
children of similar age, judgment and experience under 
similar circumstances."^^ Whether a child ten years old 
had intelligence enough to appreciate the danger from 
certain machinery and thus know the risk he assumed in 
entering into the employment, is a question for the jury.*^ 
It is presumed that a boy of thirteen can and ought to 
exercise ordinary care, and in absence of proof to the 
contrary want of such care will not be regarded as due 
to "childish instincts."*^ 



^ Pitkin V. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co., 64 Conn., 490. 

^^Birge v. Gardiner, 19 Conn., 511; Rowen v. N. Y,, N. H. & H. 
R. R. Co., 59 Conn., 371; Park v. O'Brien, 2Z Conn., 345; Neal v. 
Gillett, 23 Conn., 443 ; Isbell v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 27 Conn., 
402; Williams v. Clinton, 28 Conn., 266; Fox v. Glastonbury, 29 
Conn., 209. 

®^ Dickenson v. Vernon, 77 Conn., 537; Ryan v. Chelsea Paper 
Mnfg. Co., 69 Conn., 454. 

** Hayden v. Smithville Mnfg. Co., 29 Conn., 557, 558. 

*^ Wilson V. Willimantic Linen Co., 50 Conn., 457; Sullivan v. N. 
Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 62 Conn., 215. 

" Rohloff V. Fair Haven & W. R. R. Co., 7^ Conn., 691, 693. 

*^ Hayden v. Smithville Mnfg. Co., 29 Conn., 559. 

** Birge v. Gardiner, 19 Conn., 512. 



527] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 115 

The law of 1901 (ch. 155) provides that: 

*'It shall be the duty of the master to exercise reason- 
able care, to provide for his servant a reasonably safe 
place in which to work, reasonably safe appliances and 
instrumentalities for his work, and fit and competent per- 
sons as his co-laborers" ; and ''to exercise reasonable care, 
in the appointment or designation of a vice-principal, to 
appoint as such vice-principal a fit and competent person." 
"The default of the vice-principal in the performance of 
any duty imposed by law upon the master shall be the 
default of the master." 

The law is the same at present (G. S. 1902, sec. 4702). 

The above law being, as has been shown, but the enact- 
ment of the leading principles already firmly established 
by the Common Law decisions,^^ is of doubtful benefit to 
anyone. It is scarcely more binding on the court than 
were the precedents upon which it is based. It satisfies 
neither the employers nor their employees. Some of the 
employers say the effect of the law has been to cause 
employers to insure against liability for injury to their 
employees, and that this has destroyed the interest in 
their workmen they once had. Now, the case is largely 
one between the employee and the insurance company. 
The insurance company has no sympathy for him and 
his condition. They fight and win the case, after an 
expensive trial, where often the employer would have 
been willing to settle the damages out of court. 

The workmen, on the other hand, say the law is of 
little or no benefit to them. In the first place an employer 
is not liable under it if he has exercised reasonable care. 
The employee must assume all the accidental and ordi- 
nary risks of his employment, and all danger of injuries 
from the acts of his fellow-servants, so long as they have 
been carefully chosen. In the second place they claim 

"^See 61 Conn., 161; 62 Conn., 215; 50 Conn., 457; yy Conn., 848; 
57 Conn., 160; 20 Conn., 287. 



ii6 American Economic Association [528 

that the object of the law is thwarted in practice. The 
employers and the insurance companies are afraid of a 
trial by jury, hence, when there is a strong case against 
them, they let it go by default by failing to put in an 
appearance at the trial; and then, later, when the judge 
is ready to assess the damages, they appear with counsel 
and make a strong plea that the amount be made nominal 
only. 

The labor union men claim that the Connecticut law 
is so weak and the Connecticut courts so accustomed to 
the injured laborer getting only nominal damages, that 
whenever one of their number is injured in the service of 
a company that has property in New York or Massachu- 
setts, they bring suit for damages there. In these States, 
they say, the law is much stronger, and the juries are 
accustomed to injured employees getting reasonable dam- 
ages, and grant much more than would a Connecticut 
jury in the same case. 

These opinions are given for what they are worth. 
There is doubtless much truth in all of them. On the 
whole it is plain that this law is far from filling the place 
of an employer's liability act, as it is sometimes erro- 
neously called. It seems to have been enacted merely as 
a palliative to those who had so long been demanding 
such an act. In reality, as we have seen, it gave them 
nothing they had not possessed previous to its enactment. 
There is much need of better provision for the indemni- 
fication of injured employees. They are often bearing 
burdens beyond their means and in excess of what it is 
economically best that they bear, burdens that properly 
belong to the industry. Every industry, however pros- 
perous financially, is parasitical to the extent that it fails 
to make some adequate provision for those injured in its 
service. To this extent it is a tax upon society. 



CHAPTER IV. 



THE LABORER S WAGES. 



The laws of this chapter are concerned with securing 
to the laborer the payment of his wages without discount 
or delay. They extend over more than half a century 
and seem to recognize that it is for the welfare of society 
as well as that of the workman, that he be insured the full 
and sure payment of his wages. 

Preferred Claim of Laborer. — The first law making 
the laborer a preferred claimant in the settlement of the 
estate of an insolvent debtor was passed in 1828. In 
1853 (ch. 11) the laborer was made a preferred creditor 
to the extent of twenty-five dollars for wages due from 
the insolvent debtor for labor performed within six 
months preceding the institution of the proceedings in 
insolvency. In 1870 (ch. 104) the amount was raised 
to fifty dollars, and in 1876 (ch. 61) all limit on the 
amount was removed. In 1877 C^^- 5^) ^^^ debts for 
labor performed within three months next preceding the 
assignment, to the amount of one hundred dollars, were 
made preferred claims. The law is the same in 1885 
(ch. no) and in 1902 (G. S. sec. 271). 

The above laws, seemingly, did not apply to corpora- 
tions. In 1875 (ch. 242) all debts due any laborer or 
mechanic for personal wages from any insolvent corpora- 
tion, for labor performed within three months preceding 
the appointment of a receiver were made a preferred 
claim to the amount of one hundred dollars. The law 
seems to have been carelessly omitted from the revision 

529] 117 



11 8 American Economic Association [530 

of 1888. In 1895 (ch. 242) it was re-enacted. In 1897 
(ch. 40) the law was extended to partnerships, and is the 
same in the revision of 1902 (G. S. sec. 1051). 

The writer has learned of no complaint against these 
laws. Their justice seems to be recognized generally. 

Railroad Laborers' Wages Secured. — Contractors on 
railroad construction work usually shift from one contract 
to another, and from one state to another. They have 
no fixed place of abode and usually their only property 
is their tools, teams, etc., which they take with them. 
For these reasons they are apt to prove less reliable and 
responsible employers of labor than other contractors. 
To secure the employees of such contractors it was en- 
acted in 1870 (ch. 67) that every railroad company 
should require sufficient security from its contractors for 
the payment of all labor by persons in their employ, and 
that the company should be liable to the laborers if, within 
twenty days after the completion of their labor, they 
should notify its treasurer in writing that they had not 
been paid by the contractors. 

The law is the same to-day (G. S. 1902, sec. 3696). 
It is one of those laws governing corporations which are 
seldom violated, but which, nevertheless, it is well to have 
upon the statute books. Knowledge of the existence of 
such a law doubtless makes the railroads more careful in 
the selection of their contractors; and the law furnishes 
the employee a security he otherwise would not have. 

Discounting Wages. — Before the enactment of the 
weekly payment law in 1887 it was customary to pay 
monthly. Many of the employees were poor. Their 
poverty and their inability to get credit made it necessary 
that they secure their pay weekly. Employers sometimes 
took advantage of their necessities and charged them 
exorbitant rates of discount for paying them before the 
regular pay day. The usual rate of discount was five 



53 1 ] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 119 

per cent. The following reference to this custom was 
found in The New Haven Evening Register of January 
22, 1886: 

"Senator Golden's bill making it an offense for em- 
ployers to discount wages of employees between regular 
pay days, is aimed at a practice which has developed into 
usury in several towns in the State, especially in Meriden. 
In factories where the pay day is once a month employers 
have been in the habit for years of paying many of their 
men weekly, deducting for their trouble, as they allege, 
five per cent. Enormous profits are made in this way, 
and it is to put a stop to this practice that the bill is 
introduced." 

To stop this pernicious practice a law was passed in 
1886 (ch. 109) prohibiting employers of labor from 
making any discount or deduction from the wages of 
employees for payment before the regular time. The 
penalty for violation was a fine of from ten to one 
hundred dollars. The law is the same to-day (G. S. 
1902, sec. 4701). 

Exemption of Wages from Foreign Attachment. — The 
laws on this subject have been numerous and have ex- 
tended over a long period. In 1838 (ch. 30) wages due 
the laborer to the amount of ten dollars were exempted 
from attachment for debt. In 1850 (ch. i) were added 
to this any sick and infirm benefits allowed by any asso- 
ciation for the support of a member. In 1867 (ch. 109) 
wages due a debtor having a family to support to the 
amount of twenty-five dollars, and benefits from any 
society were exempt, except for debts for personal board. 
In 1869 (ch- ^3) th^ exemption was the same as in 1867, 
except that in suits for house rent and provisions (and in 
1872 (ch. 7) wearing apparel and fuel) only ten dollars 
was exempt, and no exemption was allowed upon debts 
for the personal board of the debtor or his family. In 
1875 (G. S. Title 19, ch. 16, sec. 13) a man without a 



120 American Economic Association [532 

family is allowed an exemption of ten dollars.^ From 
1867 to the passage of this act the man without a family 
had had no exemption. In 1880 (ch. 81) the wages of 
a minor child under the age of twenty-one years were 
exempted to the amount of ten dollars, except for the 
personal board of the minor or his parent, and in 1883 
(ch. 55) such wages were exempted wholly, when the 
child was living apart from the parent. In 1882 (ch. 59) 
it was provided that three dollars only should be ex- 
empted upon debts for personal board furnished the 
debtor or his family. In 1887 (ch. 132), under the 
influence of the Knights of Labor, the amount of exemp- 
tion was raised to fifty dollars, including wages due any 
minor child under the age of twenty-one years. In 1895 
(ch. 342) debts for the personal board of the defendant 
were excepted from this exemption, but all moneys due 
on insurance policies on property exempt from attach- 
ment and execution were exempted. In 1903 (ch. 95) 
the amount of exemption was reduced to twenty-five 
dollars. The present law (1905, ch. 195) exempts wages 
to the amount of twenty-five dollars, including the wages 
of any minor child, except on debts for the personal 
board of the defendant, where there is no exemption if 
the complaint sets forth the true cause of action and the 
amount due. It exempts also sick and infirm benefits 
allowed by any association in this State to a member 
unable to attend to his usual business, and all moneys 
due on insurance policies on property exempt from at- 
tachment and execution. 

The subject of attachment of wages has always com- 
manded much attention in Connecticut. For many years 
there has been scarcely a legislature in which from one 
to nine bills dealing with this subject have not been intro- 

^ The writer has not found the date of the enactment of this law. 



533] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 121 

duced. The merchants and landlords have opposed the 
exemption of the laborer's wages from attachment, claim- 
ing that it renders the collection of his debts impossible 
and encourages him to contract debts he has no means 
or intention of paying. They say it is only right that 
the laborer should be required to pay his debts, and that 
the creditor should have the means of enforcing him to 
pay them. This argument seems good, but there is 
another side to the case. Imprisonment for debt is a 
thing of the past. It has long been recognized that it is 
best for society, and in general for creditors, that the 
debtor be not deprived of the means of earning a liveli- 
hood. He must live and work in order to pay his debts. 
Then, too, it has been recognized that the creditor should 
be held partly responsible for the bad debts of the debtor. 
For these reasons bankruptcy laws have been passed 
which exempt from execution a certain amount of the 
property of the insolvent. These laws, however, are of 
little benefit to the workman whose only property is his 
labor and whose only income is his wages. For him, 
further protection is needed. This is found in the law 
exempting his wages from attachment. Even with this 
exemption he is less well protected than the merchant or 
the capitalist. Without this exemption the workman 
would be encouraged to go into debt and his transactions 
soon would be reduced to a credit basis with all its evils. 
He would lose his independence and his habits of saving. 
Instead of reducing the number of his debts, he would 
contract more. The credit system would take the place 
of the cash system, shiftlessness and extravagance would 
take the place of thrift and economy, and in the end both 
merchant and customer would suffer from the change. 
Manufacturers usually have favored these exemptions, 
and many of them have favored making them more 
sweeping. They see the advantages of a cash system to 



122 American Economic Association [534 

their working people. The practice of factorizing was 
quite common before the enactment of the weekly pay- 
ment bill in 1887. Speaking of its extent in 1886, Com- 
missioner Hadley, of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
says: 

"The system of factorizing does not prevail in Con- 
necticut to the extent which it did some years ago. . . . 
It is probable that the number of cases of factorizing 
annually amounts to about 5,000, while the cases of as- 
signment of wages, as indicated by our storekeeper's 
returns, are very much more numerous, — not improbably 
from ten to fifteen thousand in all."^ 

Often in these attachment suits the costs amounted to 
as much or more than the amount sued for. In 1882 
(ch. 24) it was provided that in such suits the plaintiff 
should not recover of the defendant, as costs, a sum 
exceeding one-half of the amount of damages recovered 
in the action (G. S. 1902, sec. yyy). 

In 1885 (ch. 80) it was enacted that no costs should 
be taxed in favor of the plaintiff unless a demand was 
made upon the defendant for payment not more than 
thirty days nor less than three days prior to the bringing 
of such action. The law is the same to-day (G. S. 1902, 
sec. 774). 

Assignment of Wages. — The exemption of wages 
from attachment was not sufficient to do away with the 
evils of the credit system. The laborer could assign his 
future earnings to the merchant from whom he wished 
to buy goods on credit, or to the money lender whom he 
wished to advance him money. By the mock assignment 
of his wages to a friend an unscrupulous laborer could 
escape entirely the payment of his debts. Wages were 
assigned for all of these purposes. In 1886, as we have 
seen, the number of cases of assignment was estimated 



^ Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1886, p. Iv. 



535] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 123 

to be over five thousand. The evil existed to a consider- 
able extent in many places at that time, and its effect was 
"thoroughly bad in every respect."^ 

To stop these evils laws were passed regulating the 
assignment of wages. The first law (1874, ch. 12) re- 
quires that assignments of future earnings to be valid 
must be recorded in the town clerk's office within forty- 
eight hours after the assignment shall have been executed. 
In 1876 (ch. 25) the law of 1874 was repealed, and it 
was enacted that no assignment of future earnings should 
prevent their being attached, unless it was recorded before 
the service of process upon the garnishee. This in turn 
was replaced by the act of 1878 (ch. 4) which provided 
that to be valid against an attaching creditor the assign- 
ment must be to secure a bona Ude debt then due, the 
amount of which should be stated, and the term for which 
the earnings were assigned be definitely limited, and the 
assignment be recorded before such attachment. This 
law was repealed in 1905, by an act (ch. 78) which pro- 
vides that no assignment of future earnings made as 
security for a loan or other indebtedness shall be valid 
unless the amount of such indebtedness, the rate of in- 
terest to be charged thereon, and the term for which such 
earnings are assigned shall be definitely limited in the 
assignment, nor unless the assignment shall bear a dated 
certificate of acknowledgment of the assignor made be- 
fore a proper authority. To be valid against an attaching 
creditor it must also be recorded in the town clerk's office 
before such attachment. There is a penalty of twenty- 
five dollars for intentionally dating wrongly a certificate 
of acknowledgment. 

Weekly Payment of Wages. — The laws against fac- 
torizing of wages, regulating the assignment of wages, 
and prohibiting the discounting of wages were all bene- 

" Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1886, p. Iviii. 



124 American Economic Association [536 

ficial, but they did not get at the root of the problem. 
Their object was the destruction of the credit system, yet 
they failed to make the cash system possible for many 
of the laborers of the State. A large number of these 
were foreigners. They had come here without money or 
property. They must of necessity live from hand to 
mouth. For them a cash system was impossible unless 
it was coupled with frequent payment of wages. If they 
paid cash they must get cash. The storekeeper was forced 
to do a credit business because his customers had no cash 
with which to pay. 

By 1885 the evils of the credit system had come to be 
recognized generally. As a solution of these evils and 
as a means of bringing about the cash system the Knights 
of Labor proposed the weekly payment of wages and 
began a vigorous agitation for the enactment of a weekly 
payment law. The demand for weekly payments was 
extensive/ and public opinion was largely in favor of 
such payments. The following table shows the relative 
extent of weekly, fortnightly and monthly payments in 
1886. As the investigation did not cover all the estab- 
lishments in the State these figures can be taken only as 
approximately representative: 

Time of Payment of Wages in 1886 by Percentage of Employees.' 

Total 

Employees. Men. Women. Children. 

Weekly 38.4 4i-i 34-1 27.1 

Fortnightly 14-8 12.8 18.0 9.6 

Monthly 41.0 40.3 42.7 62.0 

Mixed or unspecified 5-8 5-8 5.2 1.3 

Total loo.o loo.o loo.o loo.o 

According to this table 38.4 per cent, of the employees 
in the manufacturing industries of the State were being 

* Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1885, p. 73. 
■* Ibid., 1886, Appendix, pp. 4, 5, 20, 21. 



537] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 125 

paid weekly in 1886. Weekly payments were less com- 
mon in the case of women and children than in the case 
of men. This was due to their extensive employment in 
the textile industries, which were slow to give up long 
hours, child labor, and monthly payments. Thus, we see 
that the movement toward weekly payments was quite 
strong before the passage of the weekly payment law in 
1887. But, notwithstanding the strength of the move- 
ment and the fact that most of the employers who had 
adopted this method of payment were highly pleased with 
it, there were many who questioned the desirability of 
making weekly payments compulsory by legislative en- 
actment. Most prominent of these was Commissioner 
Hadley, of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A large part 
of his report for the year 1886 was devoted to the ques- 
tion of weekly payments. Because of his accepted ability, 
and the thorough and fairminded manner in which he 
treated the subject, some space will be given to a review 
of his discussion of it. 

Commissioner Hadley fully recognized the evils of the 
credit system. He showed that prices were uniformly 
higher at the credit stores. He showed, also, that factor- 
izing, assignments, company stores, the credit system, and 
bad debts were most common where there was the largest 
per cent, of monthly payments. He recognized that the 
cash system was necessary to destroy these evils and to 
secure the independence of the workmen. He saw the 
necessity of frequent payments ; the question was how they 
should be secured — whether by legislative enactment, or 
through the initiative and demands of the workmen. He 
first examines the popular arguments advanced against 
enforcing weekly payments by law. There were three of 
these : 

I. It is an unjustifiable interference with freedom of 
contract. 



126 American Economic Association [538 

2. In many cases it is impracticable, and it involves 
such additional inconvenience or expense as to render it 
undesirable. 

3. It is not demanded by the better class of workmen 
and it would be an injury to the others. 

These arguments are answered thus : 

1. It is an interference with the freedom of contract, 
but it is not on that account unprecedented. "There is 
no subject with which the law habitually interferes more 
than with the manner of the enforcement of contracts." 

2. The cases where weekly settlements are impractica- 
ble because of the unfinished state of the work are the 
exception. Piece-work does not render weekly payment 
impossible. Such payments are more frequent in those 
establishments which have a majority of piece hands. 
Weekly payments do involve an additional expense in 
making out weekly pay-rolls. The employer, too, may 
experience some difficulty in maintaining a cash reserve, 
but "the loss to the workman from inability to pay cash 
at the store is far heavier than any accommodation which 
his employer would have to pay for the use of the cash." 
It is not public policy to encourage concerns which cannot 
pay cash. 

3. While the best workmen may not desire or need to 
draw their wages oftener than once a month, "it is quite 
different with the man who is just beginning to save, or 
with him whose savings have been temporarily reduced 
by sickness." While weekly payments are of no use to 
the best workmen and may be worse than useless to the 
worst workmen, to the large body who are neither excep- 
tionally good nor exceptionally bad weekly payments are 
a positive advantage. These want cash payment and 
want it for good reasons. To this class belongs the large 
number of women workers, who suffer most from the 
credit system and to whom cash payment is not a matter 



539] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 127 

of indifference. They, as a rule, are paid monthly. ''Ar- 
guments which apply only to a few of the best or a few of 
the worst workmen distinctly do not apply to the women 
as a body."^ 

Commissioner Hadley, having disposed of these popu- 
lar objections to a weekly payment law, says that on the 
whole the system of weekly payment has been sufficiently 
tried to prove it practicable and sufficiently successful to 
prove it desirable. That out of deference to public opin- 
ion weekly payment is becoming more common, but that 
public opinion is too slow, and we must resort to legal 
methods. We may either (i) prescribe the manner of 
payment on the part of the employer, or (2) take away 
the power of collecting debts on the part of the store- 
keeper. Continuing, he says : 

"The general effect would be the same from whichever 
end we begin. If we compel the employer to pay cash, 
we enable the store-keeper to charge cash. ... If, on the 
other hand, we render it impossible for the store to collect 
bad debts we necessarily make it unsafe to give credit in 
a great many instances where it is now granted. We 
thus force the stores to charge cash for so large a part 
of their business as to make it indispensable for the em- 
ployer to pay cash. In the long run, the abolition of laws 
for the collection of debts would have the same effect 
as the enactment of laws compelling the employers to pay 
cash."'^ 

"On the whole we believe that the result would be 
better reached by doing away with laws for the collection 
of debt than by prescribing particular times and manner 
of payment." . . . "If you compel the manufacturer 
to pay weekly where the workman does not avail himself 
of the advantage, you produce the evil effects of the 
change without the good ones. If, on the other hand, 

'" . . . Leaving out cases of mixed payment, — a minority of 
men, a majority of women and a two-thirds majority of children 
are paid monthly." — Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1886, p. xv. 

' Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1886, p. li. 



128 American Economic Association [540 

you force the employer indirectly into the change by 
teaching the workman to demand it, you make sure that 
the change shall be really effective. ... If we at- 
tempted to legislate exactly how or when the payment 
should be made the serious exceptions which would arise 
would so strain the law as to be a serious bar to its 
enforcement." — Ibid., p. Hi. 

Then a weekly payment law in the opinion of constitu- 
tional lawyers could only reach corporations, while 
monthly payments are most common among small con- 
cerns. ''Such a law would, therefore, act with an in- 
equality which would endanger its general effectiveness. 
An attempt to produce the same result indirectly, by 
doing away with factorizing and assignment of wages, 
would strike everybody alike ; and it would have the addi- 
tional advantage that it would undoubtedly be within the 
competence of the State and not be subject to the resist- 
ance which any law has to meet whose constitutionality 
is seriously doubted." — Ibid. 

What answer shall we make to Commissioner Hadley^s 
argument; was his plan a feasible one? The greatest 
possible freedom of action should be reserved to the indi- 
vidual, and legislative restriction should be adopted only 
as a last resort. As has been shown, the movement to- 
ward weekly payments was strong before the passage of 
the compulsory law. At most the law only hastened the 
movement and made it more general. Could the same 
results have been attained in the manner suggested by 
Commissioner Hadley? In pursuance of such a plan it 
would have been necessary, first, to have exempted all 
wages from attachment for debt, to have prohibited all 
assignment of wages, and to have stopped all discounting 
of wages. This would have required as much legislation 
as a weekly payment law and such laws would have been 
more difficult of enforcement. The collection of a debt 
from a workman would have been impossible. Thus a 
premium would have been placed upon dishonesty. Then 
the change to weekly payments would have been more 



54i] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 129 

slow and less general, and, in the opinion of the writer, 
would have been attended with even greater hardships 
upon the workmen. Under such a scheme many employ- 
ers would not have adopted weekly payments until they 
were demanded by the workmen. Experience has shown 
that it is not safe for workmen to make such demands. 
Such a plan probably would have caused an increase in 
the number of company stores, instead of a decrease, as 
has been the case under the weekly payment law. To 
deprive the laborer of his right to assign his future earn- 
ings or to discount his wages is as truly an infringement 
of the freedom of contract as is compulsory weekly pay- 
ment. 

In the legislature of 1886 there were several members 
who belonged to the Knights of Labor. ^ They exerted a 
marked influence in support of labor legislation.^ A 
number of bills were carried through the House success- 
fully only to be rejected by the Senate. One of these was 
the weekly payment bill. It evoked much discussion in 
the House, and called forth many amendments. These 
were all rejected and the bill was passed by a vote of 126 
to 79. The- Senate failed to concur and the bill was 
defeated. ^^ The Democratic party in its platform of 
1886 pledged support to the weekly payment bill and 
other labor measures. ^^ The bill was passed by the next 
legislature. 

This law (1887, ch. 67) provides, (sec. i) that corpor- 
ations shall pay their employees once a week, and without 
discount, all wages earned and unpaid up to the eighth 
day preceding the day of payment. Section two ex- 



* Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1902, p. 346. 
^ New Haven Evening Register, July 29, 1886, p. i ; Representative 
T. H. Kehoe, of Legislature of 1886. 

^° New Haven Evening Register, April i, 1886. 
"^Ihid., September 28, 1886. 



130 American Economic Association [542 

empts from this requirement any corporation which shall 
pay to its employees weekly eighty per cent, of the esti- 
mated wages earned and unpaid before the eighth day 
preceding the day of payment, and shall pay in full once 
each month, and shall give notice of the same in its 
printed rules and regulations. ^^ The penalty for viola- 
tion was fixed at fifty dollars. The law is the same in the 
revision of 1902 (sees. 4695-4697). 

The law hastened the movement toward general weekly 
payments. The plan gained in favor and soon most of 
the corporations of the State were complying with the 
law. In 1886 the percentage of employees being paid 
monthly was 41, while in 1892 it was only 10.49. During 
the same time the percentage of those paid bi-weekly de- 
creased from 14.8 to 7.93. But it is the great increase in 
the percentage of employees paid weekly that shows the 
probable effect of the law. This number increased from 
38.4 per cent, in 1886 to 81.58 per cent, in 1892.^^ The 
following table shows the development of the movement 
in percentages of establishments: 

" The notice proviso in the weekly payment law was inserted for 
the purpose of allowing establishments that paid by the piece and in 
which, owing to the character of the product, it would be very 
inconvenient to ascertain the exact amount of work done each week, 
to base their weekly payment on an estimate. "But few concerns in 
the State avail themselves of the 80 per cent, clause as the law 
intends. As a rule they prefer to make extra exertions to ascertain 
the exact amount due weekly, and thus save the trouble incidental 
to having five pay days a month. When the law first went into effect 
notices were posted in a number of factories stating that employees 
who desired 80 per cent, of their wages could secure the money by 
notifying the office. . . . The employees were not always satisfied 
that a request for 80 per cent, a week would not militate against the 
permanence of their employment, the notices were defaced or torn 
down, no effort was made to replace them, and as a rule the estab- 
lishments continued on a monthly payment basis." — Report Conn. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1893, p. 56. 

" Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1893, p. 45. 



543] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 131 

Methods of Payment in Percentages of Establishments." 

i860. 1880. 1892. 

Weekly 26.54 32.18 69.79 

Bi-weekly 5.50 9.96 9.50 

Monthly 52.75 53.77 18.88 

Irregular 15.21 4.09 1.83 

100.00 100.00 100.00 

The weekly payment law only applied to corporations. 
Most of these complied with the law at once. Some, 
however, did not. They evaded the law by requiring 
their employees who desired to be paid weekly to notify 
them or to leave their names at the office. Hands who 
availed themselves of this privilege were notified, when a 
dull season came, that their services were no longer 
needed. The fear to ask for weekly payments at once 
became general. The employers excused themselves for 
not complying with the law by saying their employees 
did not desire weekly payments. Investigation showed 
that the employees did want their pay weekly. ^^ 

In 1892 71.94 per cent, of the employees of the State 
were employed in incorporated establishments, and 28.06 
per cent, in establishments that were not incorporated. 
Of those employed in incorporated establishments 91.18 
per cent, were paid weekly, 3.39 per cent, bi-weekly, and 
5.43 per cent, monthly. Of those employed in establish- 
ments not incorporated 56.98 per cent, were paid weekly, 
19.54 per cent, bi-weekly, and 23.48 per cent, monthly.^^ 

Thus we see that in 1892 weekly payments were the 
rule in incorporated establishments and were quite com- 
mon in other establishments. However, 8.82 per cent, 
of the incorporated establishments were violating the 



" Reports Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1888, pp. 20-25 ; 1890, 
p. 30. 
" Ihid., 1893, p. 48. 



132 American Economic Association [544 

law still. This number has gradually decreased and at 
present practically all corporations and most of the com- 
panies pay weekly. But there are still a few corporations 
that openly violate the law. It is the business of no 
officer to enforce the law and the employee is not in a 
position to cause its enforcement. 

The constitutionality of the weekly payment law was 
tested in 1897. It was claimed that it was "class legisla- 
tion of the most flagrant kind," and that it impaired the 
obligations of contract. The Court^'^ held that the statute 
applies to every corporation employing labor, and cannot 
therefore be said to discriminate against any class or 
classes of corporations; that these corporations exist 
solely by virtue of permission of the legislature, and have 
only such rights as it gives them; that their rights and 
freedom are not co-extensive with those of individuals; 
that the question whether expediency or public policy 
demands such legislation is one for the legislature to 
determine; but that "where the agreed compensation is 
for piece work, so called, and not an agreed rate per day, 
. . . the law cannot be said to have any practical 
application." 

The extra cost of making weekly payments may have 
had a slight tendency to reduce wages, but any such 
reduction in wages was overbalanced by the increased 
purchasing power under the cash system. Company 
stores and the credit system decreased in about the ratio 
that weekly payments increased. Weekly payments and 
the exemption of a part of the wages from attachment 
have practically abolished the factorizing of wages. The 
exemption covers more than a week's wages. It has also 
very largely done away with the necessity for the assign- 

"Rice V. Lozier Manufacturing Co., Court of Common Pleas for 
Hartford County.— Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1897, 
p. 229. 



545] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 133 

ment or the discounting of wages. ^^ In its effect it has 
been one of the best laws ever enacted in the interests of 
the laboring classes. 

Mechanic's Lien. — The legislation on this subject is 
voluminous and extends over a long period, but it has 
never been very important so far as the ordinary laborer 
is concerned. Contractors and those who have furnished 
materials have resorted to these laws most frequently. 

In 1836 (ch. 76) it was enacted that whenever the sum 
due for the services rendered or the materials furnished 
by any mechanic, on any building in any incorporated city 
in the State should exceed the sum of two hundred dol- 
lars, the same should be a privileged lien on such building 
and the land on which it stood. In 1838 the provisions 
of this law were extended to include all buildings in any 
town; and, in 1839 (ch. 29), the provisions of the act 
were extended to the claims of sub-contractors for labor 
or labor and materials furnished, whenever such claims 
should exceed the sum of fifty dollars. An act of 1849 
(ch. 33) gave any person a lien for any claim over 
twenty-five dollars, for services rendered or materials 
furnished in the construction of any building. In 1855 
(ch. 76) a lien could be claimed for materials furnished 
or services rendered "on the construction, erection, o^ 
repairs" of any building ''or of any of its appurtenances." 
In 1 87 1 (ch. 137) claims for services rendered or mate- 
rials furnished in the building of any railroad were made 
a lien upon the railroad and its property; and in 1872 

^^ "Another very beneficial effect of paying wages weekly is the 
abolition of the practice of charging a commission for advances be- 
tween monthly pay days. Five per cent, and in some instances ten 
per cent, and more was often charged for installments of wages 
earned but not due, and the necessities of workingmen often com- 
pelled them to consent to almost any discount in order that they 
might have ready money. The adoption of the weekly payment 
system always deprives this practice of any excuse for its exist- 
ence."— Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1893, p. 44. 



134 American Economic Association [546 

(ch. 7) claims exceeding the sum of twenty dollars for 
materials furnished or services rendered in the construc- 
tion or repair of any vessel were made a privileged lien 
(except as to claims for mariner's services) on such ves- 
sel and its appurtenances. In 1897 (ch. 54) claims of 
over ten dollars for materials furnished or services ren- 
dered in the ''construction, raising, removal or repairs" 
of any building were made liens on such building and the 
ground on which it stood. The same provision is found 
in the General Statutes of 1902 (sec. 4135). 

In the case of mechanic's liens on buildings and rail- 
roads, all the above laws provided that such lien should 
not hold longer than sixty days after the materials were 
furnished or the services rendered unless the person fur- 
nishing such materials or services had filed with the town 
clerk a certificate of his claim. In the case of vessels the 
certificate must be filed within ten days after the person 
claiming the lien had ceased to furnish materials or 
render services. A lien (1881, ch. 148) continues in 
force no longer than two years, unless within that time 
action for foreclosure is commenced. 

In the numerous laws passed on this subject since 1836 
the mechanic has been allowed to claim a lien for smaller 
and smaller amounts. In 1836 he could not claim a lien 
if the amount of his claim did not exceed two hundred 
dollars ; at present he may claim a lien for any sum over 
ten dollars. The preference given the claims of the me- 
chanic over those of other creditors, by the mechanic's 
lien laws, is similar to that given the claims of the laborer 
in the settlement of the estate of an insolvent debtor and 
is justified in the same way. The mechanic, as the 
laborer, lives largely from hand to mouth and it is for 
the best interests of society that he should not have to 
suffer or become a burden on others because of failure 
to secure the prompt and full payment of his wages. 



CHAPTER V. 

BOYCOTTING AND BLACKLISTING. 

The Anti^Conspiracy Acts. — The anti-conspiracy law 
was first enacted in 1877. Previous to this, however, in 
1864 (ch. 57) there was passed an act which paved the 
way for it. This act provided that every person who by 
himself, or in combination with others, should threaten, 
or use any means to intimidate, any workman in the 
employ of any person or corporation to cause him to 
leave such employ should be punished by a fine of one 
hundred dollars or imprisonment for six months, or both. 
In the revision of 1875 (G. S. Title 20, ch. 6, sec. 14) 
that part of the act which refers to a "combination with 
others" is omitted. The act does not appear in the re- 
vision of 1888. 

The act of 1877, from which has developed the present 
conspiracy law, "doubtless had its origin in the appre- 
hension which prevailed throughout the country at the 
time and soon after the trouble on the Pennsylvania 
Railroad, during which there was such an immense de- 
struction of property at Pittsburg."^ Like similar laws 
enacted by other States at this time, on the same subject, 
it provided punishment for acts such as the striking 
engineers and employees on some roads had been guilty 
of, by heavy fine and imprisonment. The bill called forth 
but little comment by the papers and was seemingly con- 
sidered a measure of minor importance by the legislature. 

The act (ch. yy) contains five sections. Sections one, 
two, three, and five impose heavy penalties upon any 

^ State V. Glidden, 55 Conn. 69. 
547] 135 



136 American Economic Association [548 

employee of a railroad, who, in pursuance of an agree- 
ment with others for the purpose of the furtherance of 
any dispute between such corporation and its employees, 
shall stop, delay, injure, obstruct or abandon any loco- 
motive or train of cars of such corporation ; or who shall 
be guilty of gross carelessness or neglect in the manage- 
ment or control of the same ; or who shall refuse to aid in 
moving, loading or discharging the cars of another cor- 
poration, in dispute with its employees. 

Section four is the one from which our present law 
came. It provides that : 

any person who alone or in combination with others, 
in furtherance of a dispute between a gas, telegraph, or 
railroad corporation and its employees, shall "use violence 
towards, or intimidate any person in any way or by any 
means, with intent thereby to compel such person against 
his will to do, or to abstain from doing, any act which 
such person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing ; 
or shall induce or endeavor, or attempt to induce such 
person to leave the employ and service of such corpora- 
tion by bribery, or in any manner or by any means, with 
intent thereby to further the objects of such combination 
or agreement: or shall in any way interfere with such 
person while in the performance of his duty on the prem- 
ises of such corporation : or shall threaten or persistently 
follow such person in a disorderly manner or injure or 
threaten to injure his property with said intents, or either 
of them, shall, upon conviction, be liable to a fine not 
exceeding three hundred dollars, or imprisonment in the 
county jail not exceeding three months." 

The act of 1877 was repealed the following year 
(1878, ch. 92). Section one of the new law which 
replaced it imposes a penalty of one hundred dollars or 
imprisonment not exceeding six months upon any per- 
son who shall unlawfully, maliciously, and in violation 
of his contract, stop, delay, injure or obstruct any loco- 
motive or train of cars. Section two of this act replaces 
section four of the act of 1877, and is what is commonly 



549] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 137 

known as the conspiracy law. In 1877 the law applied 
only to railroad, gas, and telegraph companies. The act 
of 1878 removed this limitation and extended the pro- 
tection to all persons, natural or artificial, employers or 
employees, in the management and control of their own 
business. It provides that : 

"Every person who shall threaten, or use any means 
to intimidate any person to compel such person, against 
his will, to do, or abstain from doing, any act which such 
person has a legal right ot do, or shall persistently follow 
such person in a disorderly manner, or injure or threaten 
to injure his property, with intent to intimidate him, shall 
upon conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hun- 
dred dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail six 
months." 

This section is the same at present (G. S. 1902, sec. 
1296). It has become entirely separated from the section 
regarding railroads, and is held to have a general appli- 
cation.^ But while the statute, as such, is of general 
application, in practice it has still retained its former use 
of preventing employees, in furtherance of disputes be- 
tween themselves and their employers, from combining 
and conspiring to injure their employer's business, either 
by the boycott or by inducing his employees to leave his 
service, by means of threats and intimidation. All the 
cases that have arisen under the act have been of this 
nature. This fact, together with the construction placed 
upon the act by the courts, has made the laboring men of 
the State very bitter against it. 

(i) They claim that the act, as construed, is aimed 
directly, and in practice solely, against them and their 
unions. 

(2) That the act deprives them of their right peace- 
ably to intercede with fellow-workmen and peaceably to 
make demands upon their employers for the just and 

* State V. Glidden, 55 Conn. 69. 



138 American Economic Association [550 

proper purpose of raising their wages and bettering their 
conditions. 

(3) That by depriving them of the right of interces- 
sion and of the right to withdraw and persuade their 
friends to withdraw their patronage from an employer, 
the courts are taking from them a proper instrument of 
industrial warfare and subjecting them to the mercy and 
caprice of their employers. 

(4) That the decisions under the act have made crim- 
inal acts which by nature or intention were not criminal. 

(5) That the decisions were not justified by the evi- 
dence, and that too much weight was given to merely 
circumstantial evidence. 

Whether the labor unions are justified in their bitter- 
ness against this act, and whether their criticism of its 
construction by the courts is correct, can be determined 
only by a review of the principal decisions under the act. 
As these decisions, besides construing the conspiracy act, 
define boycotting and conspiracy and determine to what 
extent striking employees may picket the place of busi- 
ness of their employers, and what constitutes intimida- 
tion, they have had a very important part in fixing the 
rights of organized labor in this State in its relation to 
and in its disputes with employers and their non-union 
workmen. For these reasons considerable space will be 
given to a review of these cases. 

Two of these cases are of special importance. The first 
is the "Glidden Case," which arose in 1886. 

The State vs. Benjamin F. Glidden and Others,^ 
Information : 

The information, containing six counts, charged Ben- 
jamin F. Glidden and three others with conspiracy. 

"The first count charged the object of the conspiracy 

'55 Conn., 46 (1886). 



55 1] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 139 

to have been (i) to compel the Carrington Publishing 
Company, a corporation and the publishers of a news- 
paper, against its will to discharge its workmen, and to 
employ such persons as the defendants and their associates 
should name; and (2) to injure and oppress the workmen 
then in the employ of the corporation, by depriving them 
of their employment; that the means to be employed to 
accomplish these purposes were to demand the discharge 
of the workmen and the employment of the defendants; 
and if such demand was not complied with within forty- 
eight hours, the defendants and their associates were to 
represent to and threaten the corporation, that there were 
associated in combination with the defendants the mem- 
bers in the city of divers secret and large labor unions to 
the number of one thousand persons, who could, by the 
fear and terror to be created by the secrecy and discipline 
of their organizations, and by the large number of the 
members thereof, and by the to be threatened and con- 
certed withdrawal of the patronage of the defendants and 
their associates, and by stopping and preventing the pat- 
ronage of others through threats and intimidations, and 
by other unlawful means, so control the persons dealing 
with the corporation as to compel them, though against 
their will, to cease doing business with the corporation; 
and who could and would boycott the business of the cor- 
poration, and so would substantially injure and destroy 
its business and prevent the same from being carried on ; 
unless the corporation would discharge the workmen in 
question and employ the defendants. And that if the 
corporation did not yield to their demands, the defend- 
ants and their associates would in like manner represent 
to and threaten all persons dealing with the corporation ; 
and that they could and would so control, boycott and 
injure the business customers of such persons as through 
fear, and by the to be threatened and concerted with- 
drawal of the patronage of the defendants, and by stop- 
ping and preventing the patronage of others through 
threats and intimidations, and by other unlawful means, 
to compel such customers, though against their will, to 
cease doing business with the subscribers and others, 
patrons of the corporation; and that the defendants 



I40 American Economic Association [552 

would not give up or abandon these proceedings to in- 
jure the business of the corporation until they had either 
destroyed said business and prevented it from being car- 
ried on, or until the corporation should comply with 
their demands ; and should further pay to the defendants 
a large sum of money, viz., $500, to defray the expenses 
of the defendants and their associates in so carrying out 
the conspiracy. It was then charged that such demand 
was made on the corporation and was not complied with ; 
that, thereupon, the agreed representations and threats 
were made to the corporation, and that the corporation 
still refusing to yield, the agreed representations and 
threats were made to the subscribers and patrons of the 
corporation, etc." 

It was further alleged that the object of the conspiracy 
was to force the corporation to discharge certain of its 
employees, and to prevent them getting employment else- 
where; and to impoverish the corporation by destroying 
the circulation of its newspaper, and by inducing by 
threats and persuasion, subscribers, advertisers and others 
to desist from further patronizing its newspaper. It was 
charged that the defendants had induced one person to 
discontinue his subscription to the newspaper, and at- 
tempted to induce sundry other persons from advertising 
therein; also, that they had by threats and persuasion 
induced the corporation to discharge from its employ and 
thereafter refrain from employing certain of its former 
employees. 

The defendants demurred to the complaint, but the 
court held it sufficient. The case was tried by a jury, and 
a verdict of guilty was rendered against three of the de- 
fendants, and of not guilty as to the other. The defend- 
ants who were convicted appealed to the Supreme Court 
of Errors, on the ground of error in the overruling of 
their demurrer, and in the rulings with regard to evi- 
dence, and also on the ground that the verdict was 
against the evidence. 

The following is a summary of the finding of facts : 
That a controversy existed between the members of an 
association known as "Typographical Union, No. 47" 
and the Carrington Publishing Company, and that a 



553] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 141 

criminal conspiracy had been entered into by the accused 
among themselves and with other persons, members of 
the association ; that two of the defendants, Glidden and 
McNamara, had taken the application of one Skinner, an 
employee of the Carrington Company, to become a mem- 
ber of the union ; that it was attempted to induce Skinner 
to take part with the union in the controversy with the 
Carrington Company ; and that during the continuance of 
the conspiracy and for the purpose, on the part of the 
conspirators, of carrying it into full effect, Skinner had 
several interviews with them. Skinner testified that in 
one of these interviews Kidd referred to the News boy- 
cott and stated that he did not believe that the Carrington 
Publishing Company would fight them as the News had 
done ; that they would carry on the boycott on the Courier 
as they had in the News case, and appeal to the merchants 
to take their advertisements out, and appeal to the sub- 
scribers ; and that they would not do as they had done in 
the News case, but if they had another battle the pub- 
lishing company would have to pay the expenses of the 
boycott. 

As one of the means to carry the conspiracy into effect 
the State claimed that Glidden distributed circulars like 
the following : "A word to the wise is sufficient. Boycott 
the Journal and Courier !" The State also claimed there 
was a conspiracy to extort money by Glidden and the 
other defendants, constituting a committee of the union 
and threatening to conduct themselves in the same manner 
towards the Carrington Publishing Company that they 
had previously done towards the News, to whose business 
manager they had presented the following agreement : 

''Agreement between the Morning News Company and 
the joint committee representing the Trades Council, 
Knights of Labor and Typographical Union, of New 
Haven. The Morning News Company acknowledges the 
right of labor organizations to fix the price of labor for 
its members, and subscribes to the following articles: 
I. The Morning News Company to discharge from their 
employ all non-union compositors, including John T. 
Hathaway, at the close of the present week. 2. To em- 
ploy none but members of the Typographical Union, and 



142 American Economic Association [554 

permit them to work under such chapel rules as they may 
adopt under the auspices of the Typographical Union. 
3. The Morning News Company to pay the joint com- 
mittee, above named, the sum of $500^ as part of the 
expense of the strike and boycott brought on by their 
refusal to recognize the demands of organized labor, 
thereby causing a strike. 4. The joint committee, above 
named, agree in consideration of the fulfillment of the 
foregoing articles on the part of the Morning News 
Company, to cause to be issued official notice of the 
repeal of the boycott against the Morning News. 5. The 
members of the joint committee, representing the Typo- 
graphical Union, agree to supply a proper complement of 
capable compositors, including a foreman. 6. Notice of 
the above to be published in the Workman's Advocate." 

"The State claimed . . . that Glidden and his asso- 
ciates, constituting a committee representing the Typo- 
graphical Union, called upon the officers of the Carring- 
ton Publishing Company, and made certain demands in 
reference to the Courier office becoming a union office, 
and threatened in case their demands were refused to 
boycott the Courier, and to deal with the Carrington 
Company as they had dealt with the News." 

The State offered to show that Glidden and his asso- 
ciates made a money demand of the News, and that 
Glidden personally was the one who made the demand, 
and offered Fowler (business manager of the News) as 
a witness, who testified that Glidden handed to him a 
paper containing the following communication sent to 
the publishers of the News and signed by a committee of 
the union : 

"Trades' Council of New Haven, New Haven, Ct., 
Jan. 25, 1886. 

"The Morning News Co.: Gentlemen — having re- 
ceived from you no answer to the terms proposed by the 
committee at the request of your representative, we con- 
sider the same to have been rejected, and at a meeting of 
the committee yesterday it was decided that you should 
be charged, in addition to the indemnity mentioned in 
said terms, fifty dollars per week after the present week 



I 



555] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 143 

as a just share of the expense incident to the continuance 
of the boycott." 

''The State claimed to have shown that these written 
and pubHshed demands upon the News Company had 
come to the knowledge of the officers of the Carrington 
Company prior to the demand made upon them by Glid- 
den, and that Glidden knew when he made the demands 
upon the latter company that the officers knew of the 
demands before that time made upon the News." 

A witness for the State testified that she overheard a 
conversation between five or six printers, all members of 
the union, and among whom was one of the defendants, 
in which it was stated that they were paying fifty cents a 
week for the expenses of the Courier boycott, and that 
it would be paid for by the Courier. 

"One of the grounds of the appeal being that the 
verdict was against the evidence, the (trial) judge certi- 
fied that in his opinion the evidence did not warrant a 
verdict of guilty against any of the defendants so far as 
the alleged conspiracy to extort money was concerned." 

With this information and this finding of facts the 
case went, on appeal, to the Supreme Court. What seems 
to the writer the most important parts of the decision are 
quoted in full. 

Decision, Carpenter, J. : 

"We will next inquire, what is a criminal conspiracy? 
. . . In the first place, it seems to be generally con- 
ceded that if two or more persons confederate and agree 
together to commit some crime or misdemeanor, such 
confederation or agreement is itself an offense." (The 
court here quotes the statute heretofore given.) "Do the 
acts which, it is alleged, the defendants conspired to do, 
fall within the prohibition of the act of 1878? They 
proposed to threaten and use means (the boycott) to 
intimidate the Carrington Publishing Company, to com- 
pel it, against its will, to abstain from doing an act (to 
keep in its employ the workmen of its own choice) which 
it had a legal right to do, and to do an act (employ the 
defendants and such persons as they should name) which 
it had a legal right to abstain from doing. There can be 
but one answer to the question, — the acts proposed are 



144 American Economic Association [556 

clearly prohibited by the statute. . . . We might per- 
haps stop here ; but the argument of the case took a much 
wider range, and the case itself will justify, and the times 
in which we live seem to require, a more extended exam- 
ination of the subject." 

"It has often been said that a conspiracy to effect an 
unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means 
is an offense. But this is said to be a limitation rather 
than a definition. ... If the ends or the means are 
criminal in themselves, or contrary to some penal statute; 
the conspiracy is clearly an offense. . . . But suppose 
two or more conspire unjustly and wrongfully to deprive 
another of his liberty or property ; then, as we shall here- 
after see, the criminal law may take cognizance of the 
act. Of course, it is difficult, if not impossible, to define 
accurately and clearly in advance what would and what 
would not be an offense. Hence, the difficulty of regu- 
lating by statute in all cases the law of criminal con- 
spiracy. . . . It is left for the court to determine in 
each particular case whether it is or is not an offense. 
. . . The supposed hardship is only apparent; it is not 
real. The danger that an innocent man will be punished 
criminally for a conspiracy, because the act was not for- 
bidden by the written law, is very small. It is hardly 
supposable that prosecutions will be instituted and sus- 
tained by the court and jury unless the acts done or con- 
templated are clearly illegal and morally wrong ; so much 
so, as to leave little or no room for a right-minded man to 
doubt." 

"If we were to attempt to give a rule applicable to this 
branch of the subject, we should say that it is a criminal 
offense for two or more persons corruptly or maliciously 
to confederate and agree together to deprive another of 
his liberty or property. Such a rule is proximately cor- 
rect and practically just." 

"Now, if we look at this transaction as it appears on 
the face of this information, we shall be satisfied that the 
defendants' purpose was to deprive the Carrington Pub- 
lishing Company of its liberty to carry on its business in 
its own way, although in doing so it interfered with no 



557] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 145 

right of the defendants. The motive was a selfish one, — 
to gain an advantage unjustly, and at the expense of 
others; and, therefore, the act was legally corrupt. As 
a means of accomplishing the purpose, the parties in- 
tended to harm the Carrington Publishing Company, and, 
therefore, it was malicious. It seems strange that in this 
day, and in this free country — a country in which law 
interferes so little with the liberty of the individual — it 
should be necessary to announce from the bench that 
every man may carry on his business as he pleases, may 
do what he will with his own, so long as he does nothing 
unlawful, and acts with due regard to the rights of 
others; and that the occasion for such an announcement 
should be, not an attempt by government to interfere 
with the rights of the citizen, nor by the rich and pow- 
erful to oppress the poor, but an attempt by a large body 
of workingmen to control, by means little if any better 
than force, the action of employers. The defendants and 
their associates said to the Carrington Publishing Com- 
pany, 'You shall discharge the men you have in your 
employ, and you shall hereafter employ only such men as 
we shall name. It is true we have no interest in your 
business, we have no capital invested therein, we are in 
nowise responsible for its losses or failures, we are not 
directly benefited by its success, and we do not participate 
in its profits ; yet we have a right to control its manage- 
ment and compel you to submit to our dictation.' The 
bare assertion of such a right is startling. The two 
alleged rights cannot possibly co-exist. One or the other 
must yield." 

'Tf the defendants have the right which they claim, 
then all business enterprises are alike subject to their 
dictation. No one is safe in engaging in business, for no 
one knows whether his business affairs are to be con- 
ducted by intelligence or ignorance — whether law and 
justice will protect the business, or brute force regardless 
of law will control it ; for it must be remembered that the 
exercise of the power, if conceded, will by no means be 
confined to the matter of employing help. Upon the same 
principle and for the same reasons, the right to determine 
what business others shall engage in, when and where it 



146 American Economic Association [558 

shall be carried on, etc., will be demanded and must be 
conceded. The principle, if it once obtains a foothold, is 
aggressive and is not easily checked. It thrives on what 
it feeds on, and is insatiate in its demands. More re- 
quires more. If a large body of irresponsible men de- 
mand and receive power outside of law, over and above 
law, it is not to be expected that they will be satisfied with 
a moderate and reasonable use of it. All history proves 
that abuses and excess are inevitable. The exercise of 
irresponsible power by men, like the taste of human blood 
by tigers, creates an unappeasable appetite for more." 

"Business men have a general understanding of their 
rights under the law, and have some degree of confidence 
that the government through its courts will be able to 
protect those rights. This confidence is the cornerstone 
of all business. But if their rights are such only as a 
secret and irresponsible organization is willing to concede 
to them, and will receive only such protection as such an 
organization is willing to give, where is that confidence 
which is essential to the prosperity of the country?" 

"Again. If the alleged right is conceded to the de- 
fendants, a similar right must be conceded to the pro- 
moters of the Carrington Publishing Company, and those 
with whom they may associate; otherwise, all men are 
not equal before the law. It logically follows that they 
in turn may control the business matters of the defend- 
ants — may determine what trade or occupation they may 
follow, whether to work in this establishment or in that, 
or in none at all. Obviously, such conflicting claims, in 
the absence of law, can lead to but one result, and that 
will be determined by brute force. It would be an in- 
stance of the survival, not necessarily of the fittest, but of 
the strongest. That would be subversive, not only of all 
business, but also of law, and of the government itself. 
The end would be anarchy, pure and simple." 

"Once more. Suppose the government should assert 
the right in the same manner to regulate and control the 
business affairs of the Carrington Publishing Company, 
and other business enterprises, how long would the people 
submit to it? And yet the exercise of such a power by 
government would be far more tolerable than its exercise 



559] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 147 

would be by secret organizations, however wise and intel- 
ligent such organizations might be; for government is 
established by the people and for the people, and is re- 
sponsible to all the people. If it abuses its power, the 
people have the remedy in their own hands ; but if a secret 
organization, in the management of which the people at 
large have no voice, abuses its power, if it is not amenable 
to law, where is the remedy?" 

"It is further alleged that another purpose of the de- 
fendants was to injure and oppress John E. Skinner and 
seven other workmen of the Carrington Publishing Com- 
pany, by depriving them of their employment. What we 
have already said applies equally well to this purpose of 
the defendants. The workmen named have just as good 
a right to work for the corporation as the defendants 
have, and thus are entitled to the same consideration and 
the same protection." 

"Then there are these further considerations : It is a 
combination not against capital or employers, but against 
fellow workmen, men whose earnings are comparatively 
small, and who, presumably, need all their earnings for 
the support of themselves and their families. They are 
ordinarily poor men, and men whose entire capital con- 
sists in their trade and time. It is proposed wantonly to 
deprive them of a livelihood and practically all means of 
support. ..." 

"It is also a combination of many to improverish and 
oppress a few. The weaker party needs and must receive 
the protection of the law. If in any case it is criminal 
for many to combine to do what any one may lawfully 
do singly, it would seem that this would be such a case. 
Numbers can accomplish what one man cannot, evil as 
well as good; and that is the reason of the combination. 
The law encourages combination for good, and combina- 
tions of workmen to better their condition by legitimate 
and fair means are commendable and should be encour- 
aged. But combinations for evil purposes, whether by 
one class of men or another, are detrimental to the public 
weal and cannot be regarded with favor by the courts. 
But combinations for good purposes may be perverted, 
and when their power is sought to be used to harm their 



148 American Economic Association [560 

fellowmen, to deprive others of their just rights, then not 
the combination but the use of it becomes criminal. In 
such a use there is a large element of wantonness and 
malice. Any one man, or any one of several men, acting 
independently, is powerless; but when several combine 
and direct their united energies to the accomplishment 
of a bad purpose the combination is formidable. No one 
man can drive these workmen from their situations ; num- 
bers, if allowed their will, may do it. The intention by 
one man, so long as he does nothing, is not a crime which 
the law will take cognizance of ; and so too of any number 
of men acting separately ; but when several men form the 
intent and come together and agree to carry it into execu- 
tion, the case is changed. The agreement is a step in the 
direction of accomplishing the purpose. The combina- 
tion becomes dangerous and subversive of the rights of 
others, and the law wisely says that it is a crime." 

"It is no answer to say that the conspiracy was for a 
lawful purpose — to better their own condition, to fix and 
advance their rate of wages, and further their own mate- 
rial interest. It is certainly true that they had a right to 
have such a purpose, and to use all lawful means to carry 
it into effect. And so a purpose to acquire property is 
lawful so far as it contemplates lawful means only. But 
if it contemplates the acquisition of money by murder, 
theft, fraud, or injustice, the end does not sanctify the 
means." 

"Neither will these defendants be permitted to advance 
their material interests, or otherwise better their condi- 
tion, by any such reprehensible means. They had a right 
to request the Carrington Publishing Company to dis- 
charge its workmen and employ themselves, and to use 
all proper arguments in support of their request ; but they 
had no right to say — *You shall do this or we will ruin 
your business.' Much less had they a right to proceed 
to ruin its business. In such a case, the direct and pri- 
mary object must be regarded as the destruction of the 
business. The fact that it is designed as a means to an 
end, and that end in itself considered is a lawful one, does 
not divest the transaction of its criminality." 

"In considering the demurrer we would not overlook 



561] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 149' 

the fact that it is alleged that one object of the defendants 
was to extort money from the Carrington Publishing 
Company. It must be conceded that the exaction of 
money otherwise than by legal means is unlawful in a 
criminal sense. ..." 

''Neither do we overlook the character and magnitude 
of this conspiracy, as evidenced by the wholesale boy- 
cotting contemplated of the patrons of the Carrington 
Publishing Company. Perhaps no new or different prin- 
ciple applies to this part of the case. We cannot forbear 
remarking, however, that it evinces a recklessness and 
disregard of the rights of others seldom witnessed in 
business affairs. Assuming, as we do, that these defend- 
ants are honest, well-meaning men, it is difficult for us 
to understand how they could be willing to involve the 
innocent patrons of the Carrington Publishing Company 
in embarrassment and possible ruin merely for the pur- 
pose of furthering their cause in a controversy in which 
these patrons were not concerned. Prima facie, such 
conduct must be regarded as malicious and corrupt." 

"We will also notice that it is alleged that the con- 
spiracy contemplated boycotting as a means to the end 
sought. That word is not easily defined. It is frequently 
spoken of as passive merely — a let-alone policy — a with- 
drawal of all business relations, intercourse and fellow- 
ship. If that is its only meaning, it will be difficult to 
find anything criminal." 

"If this is a correct picture, the thing we call boycott 
originally signified violence, if not murder. If the de- 
fendants in their hand-bills and circulars used the word 
in its original sense in its application to the Carrington 
Publishing Company, there can be no doubt of their 
criminal intent. We prefer, however, to believe that they 
used it in a modified sense. As an importation from a 
foreign country we may presume that they intended it in 
a milder sense, — in a sense adapted to the laws, institu- 
tions and temper of our people. In that sense, it may 
not have been criminal. But even here, if it means, as 
some high in the confidence of the trades-union assert, 
absolute ruin to the business of the person boycotted 



150 American Economic Association [562 

unless he yields, then it is criminal. Instances are not 
wanting in our own country where the boycott has been 
attended with more or less violence; and it cannot be 
denied that the natural tendency is, especially when ap- 
plied by the ignorant and vicious, to attempt to make it 
successful by force. It often leads to serious disturb- 
ances of the peace and even murder. We are loth, how- 
ever, to assume that these defendants intended any such 
consequences. Nevertheless, it is a dangerous instrumen- 
tality to use ; and if those instigating and resorting to it 
do not of their own accord take notice of their peril and 
voluntarily abandon its use, as we sincerely hope they 
will, the courts at no distant day will be called upon to 
recognize its dangerous tendency and treat it accord- 
ingly." 

'Trom these considerations it is apparent that the 
purpose of this conspiracy, or the means by which it was 
to be accomplished, or both, were not only unlawful, but, 
as some authorities express it, 'were in some degree 
criminal.' " 

"We have carefully examined the evidence in this case 
and are of the opinion that it is sufficient to sustain the 
verdict. The only point we regard as debatable is that 
relating to the purpose to demand money to pay the 
expenses of the boycott; but v/e think on the whole the 
jury were justified in finding that the parties concerned 
were given to understand that they would be required to 
pay the expenses. As the boycott never reached such a 
stage as that such a demand could with propriety be 
made, there is no direct evidence that there was any 
intention to make it, but there were abundant intimations 
that such a demand would be made, and there can be little 
doubt that such a probability was distinctly presented as 
an inducement not to prolong the contest." 

The balance of the opinion relates mainly to the ad- 
missibility of certain evidence, and is omitted. 

The following are the opinions of the writer as to the 
above decision : 

There is little to object to in the court's definition of 
what constitutes a conspiracy, and what a boycott, or in 



563] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 151 

its declaration of each man's right to carry on his own 
business in his own way, or in its denial of the right of 
labor organizations to dictate terms to their employers, 
or to dictate whom they shall employ. These, as general 
principles, are accepted. But whether, in this particular 
case, the evidence was sufficient to justify the decision 
that a conspiracy existed is open to question. The direct 
evidence upon which such a decision could be based was 
meagre. Much indirect evidence that was not at all con- 
clusive was admitted, and, in cases, was given undue 
weight. For example, the jury was instructed, that from 
the fact that Glidden and an unknown man were seen 
walking up and down the street close together, and that 
from between them boycotting circulars were being 
dropped, it "might well find that Glidden distributed the 
circulars."^ Probably he was guilty of distributing the 
circulars, but when a man is on trial for conspiracy the 
court should not instruct the jury to accept probabilities 
as facts. 

During the years 1885- 1887 the Knights of Labor 
movement in Connecticut was at its zenith. The order 
grew in numbers very rapidly. Outsiders knew little of 
them and they were thought to be much stronger than 
really they were. They took a deep interest in legislative 
matters, and both the Democratic and Republican parties 
were bidding for the labor vote. They took advantage 
of this opinion as to their supposed strength and not only 
made demands of the political parties for labor legisla- 
tion, but were active in their demands upon employers 
for better conditions for the laborers. Their favorite 
weapon when the employer refused to accede to their de- 
mands was to threaten the boycott. The files of the daily 
papers for these years show that they made frequent use 
of this weapon. The Knights of Labor were a new and 

*55 Conn., 79. 



152 American Economic Association [564 

secret force the growing power of which, together with 
the demands made by the organization, was the cause of 
much alarm. Did not the Court partake of this alarm 
and was it not influenced by it in rendering the above 
decision? The following quotations from that decision 
indicate that it may have been so influenced : 

"... The times in which we live seem to require 
a more extended examination of the subject." 

''The principle [of labor unions dictating] if it once 
obtains a foothold, is aggressive and is not easily checked. 
It thrives on what it feeds on, and is insatiate in its 
demands. More requires more. If a large body of irre- 
sponsible men demand and receive power outside of law, 
over and above law, it is not to be expected that they will 
be satisfied with a moderate and reasonable use of it. All 
history proves that abuses and excesses are inevitable. 
The exercise of irresponsible power by men, like the taste 
of human blood by tigers, creates an unappeasable appe- 
tite for more." 

*' . . . But if a secret organization, in the manage- 
ment of which the people at large have no voice, abuses 
its power, and is not amenable to law, where is the 
remedy?" 

"Nevertheless it [the boycott] is a dangerous instru- 
mentality to use; and if those instigating and resorting 
to it do not of their own accord take notice of their peril 
and voluntarily abandon its use, as we sincerely hope they 
will, the courts at no distant day will be called upon to 
recognize its dangerous tendency and treat it accord- 
ingly." 



The other case of particular interest in this connection 
is "The State of Connecticut v. Orrin J. Stockford, et 
al.," or, as it is more commonly known, the "Teamsters' 
Case." This case arose in 1903, very nearly twenty years 
after the decision of the pioneer Glidden case, yet there 
is no essential change in the view of the Supreme Court 



565] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 153 

as to what constitutes a criminal conspiracy under the 
Connecticut statute. 

State of Connecticut | Supreme Court of Errors, 
vs. y Third Judicial District, 

Orrin J. Stockford et al. J June Term, 1904.^ 

"Prosecution for conspiracy, brought to the Superior 
Court, in New Haven County, and tried to the jury be- 
fore Shumway, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, and 
appeal by the defendants. No error." 

"The information contains six counts charging conspi- 
racies to injure as many different parties, each of which 
is alleged to have been committed by the eight named 
defendants." 

"In the first three counts the defendants are described 
as being the officers, agents and members of an associa- 
tion or labor union, known as 'Local 340 of the Team 
Drivers' International Union,' and in the remaining 
counts as the officers, agents and members of a labor 
union known as 'Local No. 483 Carriage Drivers' Union 
of the City of New Haven, Connecticut.' " 

"The first count charges that said defendants and other 
unknown persons on the i8th of April, 1903, unlawfully 
and maliciously conspired and agreed together to compel 
The Peck & Bishop Company, a corporation located in 
New Haven, and engaged there in the business of truck- 
ing, etc., in New Haven, and employing a large number 
of teamsters, who were members of said 'Local 340,' 
and the officers and agents of said Peck & Bishop Com- 
pany, against their will, to execute and enter into the 
following agreement with said association and the mem- 
bers thereof: 

'Agreement between the Master Teamsters of 
THE City of New Haven and Vicinity and the 
Members of Local 340 of the Team Drivers' In- 
ternational Union. 
Article I. Party of the first part agrees to employ 

as teamsters none but members of Local 340, or those 

who are willing to become members at the next regular 

meeting. 

"Reoorted in 77 Conn., 227 (1904). 



154 American Economic Association [566 

Article 11. It is further agreed that no objections shall 
exist on the part of the employees to the conditions of 
this contract for a stipulated time from date herein 
named. 

Article III. Each and every member of Local 340 
shall be treated in a fair and impartial manner, and shall 
suffer no persecution because of his union principles, or 
affiliation with organized labor. 

Article IV. This Local shall at all times have at heart 
the interest and welfare of its employer's business, and 
every member is expected to acquit himself in an honor- 
able and straightforward manner, leaving as little as 
possible for criticism. 

Article V. If any employer becomes dissatisfied with 
the services of any member of this Local, such member 
shall be given a chance to hear charges by employer, and 
shall be heard in his own behalf before dismissal; and 
any member found guilty of violating this agreement 
shall be fined, suspended, or expelled from Local 340, 
according to the option of the Local. 

Article VI. Ten hours to constitute a day's work. 

Article VII. All members driving one horse shall re- 
ceive not less than $10.50 per week, six days to consti- 
tute a week's work. Two horse drivers shall receive not 
less than $12 per week, six days to constitute a week's 
work. Four horse drivers to receive not less than $13.50 
per week, six days to constitute a week's work. All 
members to receive time and one-half for all over-time. 

Article VIII. Under no circumstances will any mem- 
ber of Local 340 work July 4, Labor Day, or Christmas, 
unless absolutely necessary. 

Teams to be taken care of on such days free of charge, 
if necessary. If members of Local 340 work on said 
holidays they shall receive double time for same. 

Article IX. This agreement to remain in effect for 
the term of one year from the ist day of May, 1903, 
unless altered by the consent of both parties affected. 



For Local 340.' 
'Tt is further alleged in the first count that as a part of 
said conspiracy the defendants agreed together upon the 



567] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 155 

following unlawful methods and means by which to ac- 
complish said purpose of the conspiracy: (i) That the 
defendants and their unknown associates would cause, 
induce and persuade all the employees of The Peck & 
Bishop Company to strike, and leave the employment of 
said company; (2) That they would place pickets near 
the places of business of said company, who would by 
threats, intimidation and persuasion prevent persons from 
continuing or entering into the employment of said com- 
pany; (3) That they would threaten and intimidate the 
business customers of said company and force and compel 
them to give up all business relations with said company ; 
(4) That they would by threats, intimidation and persua- 
sion, compel the members of said association, and of other 
associations and labor unions, to refrain from employing 
said company and from employing or trading with those 
who employed said company; (5) That they would pre- 
vent said company from carrying on its business " and 
would ruin and destroy the business and property of said 
company; and that in pursuance of said conspiracy the 
defendants and their said associates performed said acts 
so agreed upon as the methods of accomplishing the pur- 
pose of said conspiracy." 

The remaining five counts with minor changes are 
similar to the first count excepting that the names of five 
livery firms of New Haven appear in the place of 
the name The Peck & Bishop Company in the first 
count. 

"It appears from the finding that the State offered evi- 
dence tending to prove all these allegations, and to show 
that the team owners described in the first three counts, 
and liverymen described in the last three counts, having 
refused to sign said agreements, the acts, described in the 
information as the methods and means adopted to accom- 
pHsh the purpose of the alleged conspiracy, were per- 
formed and carried out by the defendants and their asso- 
ciates, and that the defendants offered evidence to show 
that said allegations were not true and that neither they 
nor other officers or members of the union ever instructed 
any pickets to in any way interfere with the employees 
of said team owners and liverymen, or to use any threats. 



15^ American Economic Association [568 

intimidations or violent methods, but instructed them, 
that without using any violence or stopping them from 
their work, they might persuade non-union men to join 
the union." 

"The State having offered evidence that the defendants 
and other members of the unions, had, after the com- 
mencement of the strike, endeavored, by threats, to pre- 
vent customers from further patronizing said team own- 
ers and liverymen, one Norton, an employee of The Peck 
& Bishop Company and familiar with its business, and 
one Donnelly, secretary of the Smedley Company, were 
permitted to testify as to the number of customers lost 
by said companies respectively, after the strike, against 
the objection of the defendants that it did not appear 
how said customers were lost." 

"Alfred Coolman, a teamster of The Peck & Bishop 
Company, testified that he ceased work the first week of 
the strike and then resumed work; that afterwards he 
saw twenty-five or thirty teamsters wearing the union 
button, some of whom insulted and threatened him; that 
on one occasion a crowd of twenty or more teamsters 
hooted and yelled at him as he was driving a team of 
The Peck & Bishop Company, and three of them, who 
wore the union button, stopped him and talked of 'pull- 
ing him off the wagon and smashing him' and told him 
they would get even with him; that on another occasion 
while the witness was driving a wagon for said company, 
one Taylor, a teamster, who, it had been shown, belonged 
to the union, and had worked for The Peck & Bishop 
Company, and had, at least on one other occasion, inter- 
fered with the teams of the company, said to the witness, 
Tf I had you out of the wagon here I would break your 
bloody head and I will do it yet'; that one night while 
the witness was acting as a watchman for The Peck & 
Bishop Company, about a week after said remark of 
Taylor, some one shot at him, and that 'he felt the wind 
of it' and one of the bullets struck a wire on a bale of 
hay against which the witness was leaning. This testi- 
mony was received against the objection of the defend- 
ants that the shooting had not been connected with any 
union man." 



569] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 157 

"William Talmadge, one of the defendants, having tes- 
tified on behalf of the defendants, that he was president 
of Local 340, and assisted in preparing the form of said 
agreement, that he was the business agent of the union, 
and presided at its meetings, and that the men were in- 
structed not to interfere with or annoy any one, was 
asked on cross-examination, after he had testified that he 
was present at the meeting when the strike was ordered, 
if he did not understand that the purpose of calling out 
the men from those concerns and individuals, who had 
refused to sign the agreement, was to cripple them in 
their business. The witness answered, 'I knew that if 
they did not sign that agreement the men would be called 
out. That was the object of calling the men out, natur- 
ally.' This evidence was admitted against the defend- 
ants' objection that it was immaterial and improper and 
called for the witness' construction of an act of the union. 
The same witness was asked if it was not the purpose, as 
he understood it, that his branch of the union should be 
in absolute control of all the teamsters employed in New 
Haven. He answered that he could not state they con- 
trolled them all. The defendants' general objection to 
this question and answer was overruled." 

'Teter Flynn, one of the defendants, having testified in 
behalf of the defendants that he was secretary of Local 
340, that he appointed pickets and instructed them as to 
their duties, and that they should use no violence, and 
that they were so instructed at the meetings of the union, 
but that instances of violence had come to the knowledge 
of himself and other ofiicers of the union, and having 
testified on cross-examination that as secretary he had 
employed counsel to defend men who had been arrested 
for using violence, was asked on cross-examination who 
paid such counsel. The witness answered, 'The Union.' 
Defendants' objection to said question and answer were 
overruled by the court." 

"The defendant Cornelius testified upon direct exam- 
ination as to instructions given to union men to use no vio- 
lence, and, on cross-examination, that he had no knowl- 
edge of anyone interfering with one Joseph Kinney by 
insulting or abusive language or otherwise, excepting as 



158 American Economic Association [570 

he had read of it, and that he did not so interfere with 
him and insult him. He was thereupon asked by the 
State's attorney if he was not the person convicted in the 
Court of Common Pleas of having on the 17th of May, 
1903, committed a breach of the peace in New Haven 
streets upon said Kinney. In connection with this inquiry 
the State offered the record of such conviction, the de- 
fendants having before objected to the question, whether 
the witness had been convicted of using violence during 
the strike, upon the ground that the record was the best 
evidence. The court admitted said inquiry against the 
defendants' objection." 

Decision : Hall, J. : 

"The information alleges a combination of the defend- 
ants and others ; the purpose to be effected by the combi- 
nation ; the acts by which that purpose was to be accom- 
plished, and the performance of such acts. ... By 
these allegations but a single offense is described in 
each count, namely, a criminal combination to procure 
a certain agreement to be signed by certain described 
methods." 

"A combination of persons for the accomplishment of a 
particular object may be criminal, either because the object 
itself is criminal in its character, or because the means by 
which that object is to be effected are criminal. State v. 
Gannon, 75 Conn., 206, 210." 

"The agreements which the defendants sought to have 
signed contain no provisions which are contrary to the 
criminal law of this State, and if the only purpose of the 
combination was to procure these agreements to be en- 
tered into in order to advance the legitimate interests of 
the employees of the team owners and liverymen, without 
the view of injuring the business and property of their 
employers, such purpose was not criminal." 

"If the alleged purpose of the combination was not 
criminal, were the methods to be pursued criminal ? It is 
alleged that the defendants maliciously conspired to com- 
pel the employers to sign the agreements. It is not 
alleged that it was intended to directly threaten the em- 
ployers to induce them to sign the agreements, nor does 



57 1] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 159 

it appear that they were directly threatened. The infor- 
mation states how they were to be compelled — and we 
think it is in effect alleged that they were to be compelled 
only by the particular methods described in the informa- 
tion — the first of which is by inducing the workmen, by 
concerted action, to strike and leave the employment of 
the employers named. Such a strike may be lawful, or 
it may be unlawful and criminal. Whether it is lawful 
or not depends upon its object and the manner in which 
it is conducted. A combination to cause a strike for 
the purpose of injuring and destroying the business and 
property of another or depriving another of his liberty 
or property without just cause, is both unlawful and 
criminal, i Eddy on Combinations, Sec. 521 ^/ seq.; Old 
Dominion S. S. Co. v. McKenna, 30 Fed. Rep., 48; 
Arthur v. Oakes, 63 M., 310; Plant v. Woods, 176 Mass., 
492, 498; State V. Stewart, 59 Vt., 273; State ex rel. 
Durent v. Heugin, no Wis., 189; Doremus v. Hen- 
nessy, 176 111., 608; State v. GHdden, 55 Conn., 46, 71. 
A combination which contemplates the use of force, 
threats, or intimidation, to induce workmen to abandon 
together the service of their employers, is criminal (au- 
thorities above cited), and a combination for that purpose 
is also criminal because it is to induce the commission of 
an offense which is made criminal by statute." 

'Workmen may lawfully combine to accomplish their 
withdrawal in a body from the service of their employers, 
for the purpose of obtaining an advance in wages, a 
reduction of the hours of labor, or any other legitimate 
advantage, even though they may know that such action 
will necessarily cause injury to the business of their 
employers, provided such abandonment of work is not in 
violation of any continuing contract, and is conducted in 
a lawful manner, and not under such circumstances as to 
wantonly or maliciously inflict injury to person or prop- 
erty. I. Eddy on Combinations, § 521 ; Rogers v. Evarts, 
17 N. Y. Supp., 264; Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. 
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., 60 Fed. Rep., 803." 

"A combination to use the second, third and fourth 
alleged methods of obtaining the execution of the agree- 
ments is a combination to compel workmen and others, 



i6o American Economic Association [572 

by threats and intimidation, to refrain from doing that 
which they have a legal right to do and is criminal. The 
use of such means is made a criminal offense by § 1296 
of the General Statutes, which provides that 'every per- 
son who shall threaten, or use any means to intimidate 
any person to compel such person, against his will, to do 
or abstain from doing any act which such person has a 
legal right to do, or shall persistently follow such person 
in a disorderly manner, or injure, or threaten to injure, 
his property with intent to intirnidate him, shall be fined 
not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not 
more than six months'." 

''A combination to use the fifth alleged means, by pre- 
venting such employers from carrying on business and 
ruining and destroying their business and property, is 
equally criminal, both at common law (see authorities 
above cited) and under the statute quoted." 

"The language or conduct which will constitute the 
unlawful use of threats or means to intimidate, need not 
be such as to induce a fear of personal injury. Any 
words or acts which are calculated and intended to cause 
an ordinary person to fear an injury to his person, busi- 
ness or property, are equivalent to threats. State v, Don- 
aldson, 32 N. J. L., 151; Barr v. Essex Trades Council, 
53 N. J. Eq., loi ; Crump v. Commonwealth, 84 Va., 
927; Rogers v. Evarts, 17 N. Y. Supp., 264; O'Neill v. 
Behanna, 182 Pa. St., 27,6'' 

''Upon the trial of the present case the contest appears 
to have been upon question of fact rather than of law; 
upon the question of whether violence, threats and intimi- 
dation were the means used and directed by the defend- 
ants to be used, rather than whether proof of those facts 
was necessary in order to convict. The evidence is not 
before us, but the record shows that witnesses testified 
that pickets were instructed in open meetings by several 
of the defendants to use violence to prevent workmen 
from continuing in the employ of the team owners and 
liverymen, and that such instructions were obeyed." 

"The court instructed the jury that the information 
charged a criminal conspiracy^ and properly defined that 
offense, in the language of the opinion in State v. Gannon, 



573] Labor Legislation of Connecticut i6i 

75 Conn., 206 ; that the right of the defendants and others 
to strike, or leave the service of their employer singly or 
in a body, even though they believed that the result of such 
action would be to bring the business of their employers 
temporarily to an end, and the right to meet together and 
counsel such action, were unquestioned; that if the only 
purpose of the strike was to procure better pay or shorter 
hours, the purpose was a lawful one, but that the defend- 
ants had no right to combine to accomplish such purpose 
by means of a crime ; that if the real purpose of the strike 
was to ruin the employer's business by threats and intimi- 
dation it was unlawful, and that a conspiracy for that 
purpose was a crime; that the stationing of pickets for 
the purpose of obtaining information as to the extent of 
the business of the person whom the picket was directed 
to watch, was not unlawful; that it might be lawful to 
attempt to induce another to leave his employer's service 
by fair arguments, and, also, perhaps, to station pickets to 
ascertain how such persons might be reached and lawful 
means employed to induce them to leave their employers' 
service; that it was the right of members of these unions 
and other drivers to refuse to drive their carriages at any 
time and was lawful for the defendants to solicit the 
business which was being done by said team owners and 
liverymen, and to induce their customers by fair means 
to employ the defendants and their friends; but that a 
combination to do these things by threats and intimida- 
tion was a criminal combination, and that the placing of 
pickets to induce one to leave his employer's service by 
threats and intimidation was unlawful; but that the de- 
fendants should not be convicted for what some one else 
had done, but only for what they had themselves done; 
that the words 'threat' and 'intimidation' had their ordi- 
nary meaning in a statute, and that for the purpose of 
this case a threat was a menace of such nature as to un- 
settle the mind of the person upon whom it operated." 

"There is no error." 

''In this opinion the other judges concurred." 
These two decisions have determined what, legally, 
labor organizations may do and what they may not do. 



1 62 American Economic Association [574 

They may combine to demand higher wages and better 
conditions, and if these are not granted they may strike; 
but they cannot combine to injure the employer's busi- 
ness, or to secure the acceptance of their demands by 
threats or attempts to injure it. They may withdraw 
their services and patronage from an employer, but they 
must not use force or intimidation to induce other patrons 
to do likewise. They may picket an employer's place of 
business and they may persuade and induce his employees 
to leave his service, but they have no right to use force, 
threats, or intimidation as such means of inducement, or 
to dictate to an employer whom he shall employ. In 
short the unions, lawfully, may make any reasonable 
demands of employers and may use all peaceful means to 
secure their fulfillment, but they must in no case resort 
to force, threats or intimidation. 

The construction by the courts as to what actions or 
words constitute conspiracy, boycott, threats and intimi- 
dation and as to what evidence is admissible as proving 
such has been rigid ; but probably not too much so for the 
best interests of the public or for that of the unions them- 
selves. They are still able to go to reasonable lengths 
to secure the acceptance of their demands. In the past 
they have lost more than they have gained by going 
farther. 

Organized labor has been trying since the Glidden case 
in 1886 to get the conspiracy act amended or repealed^ 
but without success. The boycott in any extreme form is 
unpopular. The present law restrains the unions from 
resorting to violence and destruction of property as means 
of furthering their ends, and, in this respect at least, 
meets popular approval. 

Blacklisting. — The conspiracy law restricts unions 
from going to extremes in strikes and boycotts. Does it 
render them unequal in their controversies with their 



575] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 163 

employers and place them at the mercy of these employ- 
ers? This depends upon whether like or equal restric- 
tions have been placed upon the employers. 

That, in practice, the conspiracy law is not equally 
restrictive upon employers and employees cannot be dis- 
puted. A boycott to be effective must be somewhat 
general. To make it so agitation through the press or 
otherwise is necessary. It thus becomes more or less 
public, and a conspiracy of employees or unions to boycott 
their employers can be discovered and traced to its insti- 
gators easily. It is otherwise with a conspiracy of em- 
ployers to blacklist their employees. Its success does not 
require agitation or publicity, but the reverse. Knowl- 
edge of it can be confined to the conspirators. Overt 
acts are uncalled for. Such a conspiracy is not easily 
detected, and when detected it is almost impossible to 
secure evidence that will secure conviction. Then the 
employee, or his union, is less able to bear the expense 
of a suit than is the employer. 

The writer has learned of but one case in this State 
in which an employee brought suit against his employers 
for a conspiracy to blacklist him. This case arose in 1886 
and was said to be the first of its kind in the whole history 
of American jurisprudence.^ The superintendent of the 
New Haven and North Hampton Railroad Company, and 
the assistant superintendent of the New York, New 
Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, were charged 
with and found guilty of a conspiracy to blacklist an 
employee who voluntarily had left the employment of the 
New Haven and North Hampton Railroad Company in 
what the superintendent called "a mean way," and had 
secured employment with the New York, New Haven 
and Hartford Railroad Company. After a few days' 
work in his new position the man, Thomas F. Meany, 

^New Haven Evening Register, January 8, 1887. 



164 American Economic Association [576 

was laid off, not because his work was unsatisfactory, 
"but solely because there was a mutual agreement be- 
tween the defendants that a man not approved by one 
should not be employed by their respective companies, 
so far as they had control."^ "The Court held^ that the 
defendants had a common design to hinder the complain- 
ant from doing his work and earning his pay; not for 
good reasons connected with his immediate employment, 
but for reasons originating 'from excessive courtesy' be- 
tween them, and which would not have been put into 
operation except for said mutual understanding, which 
was to all intents and purposes a 'boycott' upon the indi- 
vidual who was the subject of the conspiracy."^ 

In the trial court the judge apologized for finding his 
distinguished prisoners guilty and fined them $50 each 
and costs. 

After the decision of the Glidden case, and particularly 
after the decision of this case, labor unions recognized 
their practical inequality before the law, and began agita- 
tion for a blacklist law that would restrict employers as 
closely as the conspiracy law restricted them. Led by 
the Connecticut Branch of the American Federation of 
Labor, they made a fight in 1895 for the passage of a 
blacklist law. They presented and advocated to the 
Committee on Labor the blacklist law of Colorado. A 
substitute bill (H. B. 620) was recommended by the 
Committee, but it was amended in the House and was 
finally indefinitely postponed because the labor union men 
thought the amendment destroyed the purpose of the bill. 
In 1897 the Colorado law, with minor changes, was again 
proposed by the Legislative Committee of the Connecticut 

' State V. Opdyke, et al., Wright on Criminal Conspiracy and 
American Cases, by Carson, p. 176, 1887. 

* Case not found in any of the court reports. See previous refer- 
ence and the New Haven Evening Register, 1886, Nov. 30, Dec. i, 10 
and 21 ; 1887, Jan. 8. 



577] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 165, 

Branch of the American Federation of Labor. The bill 
passed was scarcely a good digest of the Colorado law. 
It provides (1897, ch. 184, and 1902, G. S. sec. 1298) 
that: 

"Every employer who shall blacklist an employee with 
intent to prevent such employee from procuring other 
employment shall be fined not more than two hundred 
dollars." 

The law leaves it for the courts to decide what consti- 
tutes blacklisting. They have not done this. The only 
penalty is a fine not exceeding $200, while in the case of 
the conspiracy act the penalty is a fine not exceeding 
$100 or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding 
six months. If the act prohibiting blacklisting is to re- 
strict employers as much as the conspiracy act restricts 
employees, the penalties for violation should be the same. 
In practice the act has been of little use. Conviction of 
an employer is almost as difiicult under it as under the 
conspiracy act. Usually, to convict, a conspiracy must 
be shown to exist. The law makes no provision for the 
punishment of attempts to blacklist. These can only be 
reached under the conspiracy law. 

Even with this law against blacklisting the employees 
are not, in this respect, on an equal footing, both legally 
and practically, with their employers. Whether the more 
close restrictions are made necessary because of a greater 
tendency on the part of employees and their unions to 
go to extremes and infringe upon the rights of others is 
a question we are not called upon to answer in this study. 
The following paragraphs show that the restrictions upon 
employers have not been rigid enough to prevent abuses 
by them. 

The case (State v. Opdyke et al.) in which two rail- 
road superintendents were convicted of a conspiracy to 
boycott a workman has been referred to. Complaints of 



1 66 American Economic Association [578 

understandings between employers for blacklisting pur- 
poses were made to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 
1888.^ The report of the same bureau, for 1890 (p. 2y), 
in speaking of the opinion of laboring men that they were 
being blacklisted, says: 

"Their idea is illustrated by the agreement on the part 
of employers that they will not employ a laboring man or 
woman discharged from another employer in their line, 
or who leaves such employer without his consent and 
approval. It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to 
find recorded evidence of such agreements. The inter- 
ested parties would not be likely to permit them to come 
to the eye of the public. That such agreements do exist, 
and that they are practically carried out, is undoubtedly 
true." 

The Report of the Legislative Committee of the Con- 
necticut Branch of the American Federation of Labor, 
1895, says:^^ 

"The passage of the weaver's bill was advocated by 
men who are blacklisted by the manufacturers for reasons 
of their protests on unjust fines. . . . They also ex- 
hibited by written and printed evidence the system of 
blacklisting carried on by the manufacturers of Rockville, 
and proved beyond a doubt that they themselves were 
victims of that disreputable practice and were compelled 
to seek other employment in order to earn a living." 

In 1904 was organized in Hartford what is now the 
"Manufacturers' Bureau of Hartford County." Its ob- 
ject, as read from its constitution by its secretary, is to 
assist employers in securing desirable help and to assist 
worthy employees in securing employment. There are 
thirty factories in the association. According to the 
secretary no fee is charged for furnishing employment. 
Briefly, the plan is this : The card system of records is 
used. The applicant for work fills out a comprehensive 

' Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1888, p. 31. 
^° Report of Annual Convention of Connecticut Branch of Ameri- 
can Federation of Labor, 189S, p. 57- 



579] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 167 

information card. This is filed. When an employer 
wants help he informs the bureau, and it furnishes the 
hands. When the applicant for work is placed, a card 
showing where he is employed, his wages, etc., is filled 
in the employment ofiice. Should he leave this employ- 
ment a leaving card, of which the following is a copy, is 
at once sent to the bureau and is there filled. 



NOTICE. 
Fill out blank on reverse side of this card imme- 
diately should any workman 

LEAVE YOUR EMPLOYMENT. 

Be careful to give cause for discharge or his reason 
for quitting if possible, and also rate paid him. 
Mail at once to 

Manufacturers' Bureau of Hartford County, 
Arthur E. Corbin, Secretary, 

847 Main St., Room 38, 
Hartford, Conn. 
(Quit Card.) (Over) 



Reverse Side of Card. 



Clock No 

name 

address 

Has this day left our employ. 

Discharged, quit or laid off ? 

Rate paid 

Cause 

Ability ? Steadiness ? 

Firm Name 

Date per 

(See instructions on the other side.) 



By this card system the bureau keeps track of a man 



1 68 American Economic Association [580 

and his record from the time that he first applies for 
employment. Should he leave one firm of the association 
and apply to another for work, it is said that the latter 
communicates with the bureau immediately and gets the 
man's record. 

Such a bureau may be effective of much good, or of 
much evil. If properly administered it may be very 
effective in furnishing employers with desirable help and 
in securing employment for worthy employees. On the 
other hand it places in the hands of employers the most 
effective information and machinery for blacklisting em- 
ployees. If it is used for this purpose, as union men think 
it sometimes is, it can be effective of much harm. It may 
be tantamount to saying that if an employee dissatisfies 
one employer of the association he cannot work for any 
of the others. The injustice of such an assertion is 
evident. At best the system places the applicant for 
employment at a disadvantage by informing his prospec- 
tive employer what wages he received at his last place; 
and knowledge of the employee's past record may un- 
justly prejudice a new employer against him. 

There is a bureau in Bridgeport similar to the one in 
Hartford. Others are said to be located at Springfield, 
Boston and Worcester (in Massachusetts), and New 
York. These, according to the secretary of the Hartford 
bureau, are loosely associated through their secretaries.^^ 

The following words of Commissioner Hadley make a 
fitting conclusion for this chapter : 

"Blacklisting by a combination of manufacturers cor- 
responds to boycotting by a labor organization. Both are 
fighting measures. Both are liable to abuse, each in the 
same way. Each becomes an instrument of industrial 
tyrann y the moment it is thus abused. A man who advo- 

^ Union men say these associations are members of a larger asso- 
ciation, the "Parry Association," or National Association of Manu- 
facturers, with its headquarters at Cincinnati, Ohio. 



581] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 169 

cates blacklisting has no right to complain if he is boy- 
cotted. A man who advocates boycotting has no right 
to complain if he is blacklisted. But the community 
cannot safely endure the irresponsible exercise of either 
system."^^ 

"Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1885, p. 78. 



CHAPTER VI. 

FREE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT BUREAUS. 

Along with the growth of the factory system in the 
United States, and the rise of a wage-earning class, has 
arisen the problem of unemployment. A new invention, 
the closing of a factory, or a slight trade depression may 
throw hundreds of workmen out of employment. They 
are dependent upon their daily wages for bread and must 
have new employment or suffer. On the other hand, the 
introduction of an additional process, the building of a 
new factory, or more prosperous trade may call for addi- 
tional helpers. Unless the employer finds the needed 
workmen, and unless the unemployed workmen find em- 
ployment, there is an economic loss, not only to the 
employer and the workmen, but to society at large. Often 
these two parties will not find each other without the 
assistance of an intermediary agent. To supply this need 
private intelligence offices have sprung up all over the 
country, and many of the States, including Connecticut, 
have established free public employment bureaus. 

Before beginning a discussion of the Connecticut bu- 
reau it may be well to inquire whether these States were 
justified in establishing free public employment bureaus. 
For this purpose we may divide that part of the popula- 
tion that has no means of support, except through its 
labor, into the following classes : 

1. The employed, 

2. The unemployed, 

3. The unemployable. 

Plainly the employed have no need of a bureau, public 
170 [582 



583] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 171 

or private. Neither have the unemployable — the men 
and women who are so weak mentally or physically as to 
be unfit for any labor. Those of the second class are the 
only ones who have any need of employment bureaus. 
What part of this class has need of a free public bureau ? 
Evidently those who have the intelligence and means to 
secure employment, either through their own efforts or 
with the assistance of a private bureau, have no pressing 
need for a free public bureau. In fact, such a bureau, by 
rendering them less dependent on their own resources, 
may prove to be a harm rather than a benefit to them. 

Between the unemployable — who are objects for char- 
ity, public or private, — and those who are capable and 
should be forced to carry on an independent existence, 
there is a large number of people who, because of old age, 
destitution, ignorance, loss of hope, lack of self-confi- 
dence, etc., are hovering between independence on the one 
hand and poverty and charity, or crime, on the other. 
They are employable but unable of themselves to secure 
employment. This is the class that needs the assistance 
of a public employment bureau. This class should not be 
permitted to fall to the class of the unemployable. If 
they are not employed there is a great waste of labor 
power, as well as much suffering, increased pauper ex- 
penses, and other grave social evils. It is to the interest 
of society to get them at work. Do they constitute a 
large enough portion of the unemployed to justify the 
institution of employment bureaus for this purpose? 

A free public employment bureau is a tax upon all, 
while comparatively only a few — the employers and em- 
ployees who patronize it — receive a direct benefit. Is the 
indirect benefit to society as a whole great enough to 
justify the imposition of this tax ? As has been said, only 
that part of the unemployed which, without public assist- 
ance, would fall into the class of the unemployable, con- 



172 American Economic Association [584 

stitutes an employment problem which it is the duty 
and interest of the State to solve. Unless the State is 
to enter upon a socialistic regime, there is no reason why 
it should enter into competition with private agencies in 
securing employment for the others. 

We have no way of determining the number of such 
unemployed persons in Connecticut at the time of the es- 
tablishment of its bureaus in 190 1. In 1902 the bureaus 
secured 7,679 positions. Doubtless many of these appli- 
cants were repeaters. As all applicants were received, 
many of them would not fall within the limits of the prob- 
lem as we have defined it. The number that would do so, 
after making proper allowances, probably did not exceed 
2,500 different persons. If we divide the entire cost of 
maintaining the bureaus^ among these 2,500, we find that, 
if our estimates are fair, it cost the State approximately 
four dollars each to furnish situations for them for one 
year. This, of course, is but a rough estimate. If it even 
approximates the truth, the State could well afford the 
outlay, to prevent these 2,500 people, or any large pro- 
portion of them, from falling, even for one year, into the 
unemployable class. 

In the opinion of the writer the establishment by the 
State of free public employment bureaus, which will be 
patronized by only a small proportion of the people but 
supported by all, must be justified by the reasons given in 
the previous paragraphs. However, in Connecticut and 
in many of the other States, there was another reason 
which was urged as strongly as any of these and which 
probably had as much influence in securing their estab- 
lishment. This was the corruption in the existing private 
agencies. Their corrupt practices were sufficient reason 
to license and regulate them, but hardly sufficient to 
justify the establishment of free public bureaus. 

^This was $9,894.13, in 1902. — Report Comptroller, 1902, p. 115. 



585] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 173 

In 1900 there were forty-four private employment 
agencies in Connecticut. Corrupt practices were common 
among them.^ Often exorbitant fees were charged 
whether employment was furnished or not. They preyed 
upon the ignorant and helpless and often took their last 
dollar without securing them employment. The Report 
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1900 (pp. 192, 193), 
says: 

''Many of the private institutions are so notoriously 
selfish that great wrongs are done the employers and 
employees. . . . It is a matter of common knowledge 
that the private intelligence offices take the last dollar a 
poor unemployed person has, send the party to some place 
which is in collusion with the office, the employment hun- 
ter is told that the vacancy there has just been filled and 
help no longer is needed, and the victim has lost his 
money and his pains." 

These private offices were conducted for profit, with 
little heed to the public good. Their fees were high, their 
service poor. 

The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
in his reports for 1899 and 1900, advocated strongly the 
establishment of free public bureaus. The law establish- 
ing them was passed by the legislature of 1901. There 
was no opposition to the bill. It was endorsed generally 
by the people of the State, and the labor organizations 
presented to the General Assembly 115 petitions favoring 
it.^ The law (ch. 100) provided for the establishment 
of a free public bureau in each of the cities of New 
Haven, Hartford, Bridgeport, Norwich and Waterbury, 
to be under the supervision of the Commissioner of the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, who was authorized to ap- 
point superintendents for them, and fix the salaries of the 

^Reports Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1899, 1900. 
^Report Annual Convention Conn. Branch of American Federa- 
tion of Labor, 1901. 



174 American Economic Association [586 

same. The total expense for each bureau was limited to 
two thousand dollars a year. 

The other sections of the act (sees. 2-10) relate to the 
licensing of private agencies. An employment agency 
(sec. 2) is defined as any agency where a fee is received 
for procuring a situation of any kind, or for procuring 
or providing help for any person, except procuring em- 
ployment for school teachers. No person (sec. 3) is 
permitted to carry on such an employment agency unless 
he shall be licensed by the Commissioner of the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics. The license fee is ten dollars for 
the first year and five dollars for each succeeding year. 
Each licensee (sec. 4) is required to give bond in the 
penal sum of five hundred dollars for his faithful compli- 
ance with the act. He must (sec. 5) keep a register of 
all applicants for work, and of all applicants for help, and 
such register must be open to the inspection of the Com- 
missioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics or his agents. 
The fee for procuring employment must not exceed two 
dollars (sec. 6). A receipt must be given the applicant 
for this fee and, in case he does not procure employment 
through the agency within one month, it must be returned 
to him on demand. No such licensed person shall send 
any female to any place of bad repute, or publish any 
false notice, or give any false information concerning 
employment, or make false entries in his register (sec. 
7). The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
is required to look after the enforcement of the act and 
report violations to the proper prosecuting officer (sec. 
8). Violations are punishable by a fine not exceeding 
one hundred dollars. 

In the revision of 1902 (G. S. sees. 4608-4614) the 
law is unchanged, except that the provision of the law 
of 1 90 1 which exempted from the law agencies engaged 
in procuring employment for school teachers is omitted. 



587] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 175 

This exception was re-enacted in 1905 (ch. 148). It is 
not possible to procure such positions for the two dollar 
fee to which the licensed agencies are limited. In 1903 
(ch. 33) the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Sta- 
tistics was authorized to establish branch public employ- 
ment bureaus under the direction of the five established 
bureaus. None such have been started. 

While the good work done by the free public employ- 
ment bureaus has justified their establishment, there has 
always been a lack of general public interest in them and 
their work. They have not been liberally patronized by 
those looking for employment or by those looking for 
help. Manufacturers, especially, have refused to patron- 
ize them, and consequently they have placed compara- 
tively few shop hands and mill operatives. The lack of 
interest on the part of the employing public no doubt has 
been due largely to ignorance of the existence and work 
of these bureaus. The law provides for only one man at 
each office. His time is taken up with the routine office 
work, and he has little time to visit employers personally, 
and interest them in the work of the bureau. The lack 
of patronage by manufacturers is doubtless due largely 
to the classes of help that can be furnished by the bureaus. 
But few skilled workmen apply to them for situations, 
and hence they can seldom furnish the class of help most 
needed by the factories. Then, in the case of women 
servants and farm hands, it must be remembered that 
those who are most frequently out of work and those 
who have the greatest need for the assistance of an em- 
ployment bureau are not, as a rule, the most desirable 
class of help. 

The following table shows the number of applications 
for situations, the number of applications for help, and 
the number of positions secured by the five bureaus for 
each of the years 1 901-1905 : 



176 



American Economic Association 



[588 



OPERATION OF THE FIVE FREE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 
OFFICES OF CONNECTICUT, 1901 TO 1905.* 





1901 
(Five Months) 


1902 


1903 


1904 


1905 


Situations wanted : 
Males, 
Females, 
Total, 


2,820 
2,922 
5,742 


6,761 

7,437 
14,198 


6,165 

7,043 

13,208 


5,350 

7,374 

12,724 


4,504 

7,227 

11,730 


Help Wanted : 

Male, 

Female, 

Total, 


1,137 
2,733 
3,870 


3.268 

7.698 

10,996 


3,306 

7,422 

10,728 


2,667 
6,616 
9,283 


3,256 

6,860 

10,116 


Positions Secured : 
Males, 
Females, 
Total, 


1,083 
2,058 
3,141 


2,873 
4,806 

7,679 


3,013 
5,167 
8,180 


2,506 
5,369 
7,875 


2,994 
5,700 
8,694 



It will be noticed that the number of applications for 
situations by males has declined rapidly, while the num- 
ber of applications by females has remained more steady. 
There has been a gradual decline in the total number of 
applicants. Over two-thirds of the requests for help have 
been for females. The total number of such requests, on 
the whole, has been declining gradually. Almost two- 
thirds of the positions secured have been for females. 

Such figures must be interpreted with care. The de- 
cline in the number of applications for situations and for 
help does not necessarily indicate a loss of confidence in 
the bureaus on the part of the public, or inefficiency of the 
bureaus. Such a decline may be due largely to the con- 
tinued prosperity, and to the present stability of industry 
in the State, both of which have decreased the need of 
employment bureaus. 

The following table shows that there has been but little 
change in the percentage of applicants for whom situa- 
tions were secured. It shows, also, that places can be 



* Reports Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901, p. 232 ; 1902, p. 
557; 1903, P- 481; 1904, p. 493; 1905, p. 205. 



589] 



Labor Legislation of Connecticut 



177 



found for females much more readily than for males. The 
percentage of applicants to whom help was furnished 
shows a healthy increase. 

SITUATIONS SECURED AND HELP FURNISHED, BY 
PERCENTAGE OF APPLICANTS.^ 



Year 


Situations Secured 


Help 


Male 


Female 


Total 


Furnished 


Five Months 1901, 


38.40 


70.43 


54.7 


81.16 


1902, 


42.49 


64.62 


54.8 


70.00 


1903, 


48.00 


73-00 


62.0 


76.25 


1904, 


46.84 


72.81 


61.89 


84.83 


1905, 


66.47 


78.88 


74.12 


85.94 



The next table, giving the number of situations secured 
in certain occupations, shows that the work of the bureaus 
is confined very largely to securing situations for the 
different classes of women servants and for farm hands. 
Over eighty-one per cent, of the situations furnished 
women have been in these servant positions. Only four 
per cent, of the women placed have been shop hands. 
Almost thirty-six per cent, of the males placed have been 
farm hands. Only a small per cent, of the positions 
secured have been for laborers and shop hands. ^ The 
three classes, farm hands, laborers, and shop hands, com- 



° Reports Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901, p. 232; 1902, 
p. 557; 1903, pp. 473, 474; 1904, p. 493; 190S, P- 205. 

"In 1903 11.3 per cent., in 1904 10.2 per cent., and in 1905 14.1 per 
cent, of the situations secured for males were as machine hands or at 
other factory work. — Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1905, 
p. 198. 



178 American Economic Association [590 

prise over fifty-two per cent, of all males securing em- 
ployment through the bureaus.''' 

Situations Secured.* 

Male: 1901." 1902. 1903. 1904. 1905, 

Farm hands 343 886 1,098 1,086 1,070 

Per cent of total for year 31.7 30.8 36.4 43.3 35.7 

Laborers 158 165 194 210 387 

Per cent, of total for year 14.6 5.7 6.4 8.4 12.9 

Shop hands 56 324 157 155 257 

Per cent, of total for year ... . 5.2 11.3 5.2 6.2 8.i 

Total number 557 1,375 i,449 i,45i I,7I4 

Per cent, of total for year 51.5 47.8 48.0 57.9 57.3 

Female: 

Chambermaids 34 97 199 161 84 

Cooks 183 409 416 449 375 

General housework 1,110 2,311 2,290 2,453 2,465 

Housekeepers 52 163 154 120 126 

Kitchen help 127 231 219 257 417 

Laundresses 55 178 181 340 356 

Second girls 70 241 195 134 217 

Waitresses 155 382 443 456 501 



Total number 1,786 4,012 4,097 4,370 4,541 

Per cent, of total for year 86.8 83.5 79.3 81.4 79.7 

Shop hands 49 i73 I57 229 315 

Per cent, of total for year 2.4 3.6 3.0 4.3 5.5 

Although Connecticut is primarily a manufacturing 
State and although the large mass of her laboring people 
are employed in the different manufacturing industries, 
the above table shows that the free public employment 

' "Since July i, 1901, when the offices were first instituted, situa- 
tions have been secured for 48.71 per cent, of the male, 72.18 per cent, 
of the female and 61.75 per cent, of all applicants for employment. 
During the same period help has been furnished to 78.93 per cent, of 
all applicants for the same." — Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Sta- 
tistics, 1905, p. 205. 

* Compiled from reports of the Connecticut Bureau of Labor Sta- 
tistics, 1901-1905. 

^ For five Months only. 



59i] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 179 

bureaus have secured employment for but few of these 
factory people. However, the classes that constitute for 
the State the real problem of the unemployed are not com- 
posed to any large extent of factory workers. If the pub- 
lic employment offices furnish situations for a large part 
of those who do constitute this problem, it is no reason 
for discouragement to find that their services are limited 
largely to this class. 

The following table shows the cost of the public em- 
ployment bureaus to the State, and the cost per situation 
secured : 



Year 

ive months 1901 


Total cost 
of Bureausio 

... $2,393.56 


Total No. of 
Situations 
Secured" 

3,141 


Cost pel 
Situatioi 
Secured 

$0.76^ 


1902 


. . . 9,894.13 


7,679 


1.29 


1903.... 


. . . 9,307.20 


8,180 


1. 14 


1904..., 


. . . 8,608.70 


7,875 


1.09 


1905.... 


... 8,974.87 


8,694 


1.03 



That part of the law of 1901 which relates to the 
licensing of private employment bureaus has been effec- 
tive of much good. The number of such offices has 
varied little. In 1900 there were forty- four of them,^^ in 
1903 the number licensed was forty-seven, in 1904 forty- 
four, and in 1905 forty-three. Although there has never 
been a careful examination of these bureaus and their 
registers by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics or his agents, complaints against them have 

^"Comptroller's Reports, 1901-1905. 

" Reports of Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901-1905, 

"The Report of the Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1901, p. 
186, gives $5,412.31 as the expense of the bureaus for the first five 
months. This would make the cost per situation secured $1.72. This 
difference is due to the difference in time of closing the respective 
reports. It affects the cost per situation secured in 1902 also, but 
since then the figures given above should be approximately correct. 

" Report of Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1900, p. 164. 



i8o American Economic Association [592 

been comparatively few since they have been licensed. 
They seem to be of a better class than formerly, and to 
be carrying on their business more honestly. However, 
an annual examination of them and their registers might 
be beneficial, and could do no harm. 



CHAPTER VII. 

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION. 

In 1895 a resolution was presented to the General 
Assembly calling for the appointment of a State Board 
of Arbitration for the consideration of labor disputes. 
At the hearing before the Committee on Labor the legis- 
lative committee of the Connecticut Branch of the Amer- 
ican Federation of Labor introduced the New York State 
Law on Arbitration. This law provided for local and 
State boards. 'The Committee on Labor recommended 
the passage of the sections relating to a State Board, 
believing that by simplifying the bill its chances for 
adoption by the General Assembly would be promoted. 
. . . "^ At the hearing the bill was warmly supported 
by the representatives of organized labor. It passed the 
house without opposition, but met some opposition in the 
Senate. 

This law (1895, ch. 239) provides: 
that the governor shall appoint a state board of media- 
tion and arbitration, to consist of three persons, each to 
hold office for two years; one to be selected from the 
party which at the last general election cast the largest 
vote for governor, one from the party that cast the next 
largest vote for governor, and the third from a bona Ude 
labor organization of the State., The clerk or secretary 
of the board may issue subpoenas, administer oaths in all 
cases before the board, and call for and examine the 
books, papers and documents of the parties to such cases. 
In case of a dispute between an employer and his em- 
ployees they may submit it to the board. In such case 

^Report Annual Convention Conn. Branch American Federation 
of Labor, 1895. 

593] 181 



1 82 American Economic Association [594 

the board shall proceed to the locality and inquire into 
the cause of the dispute. The parties shall submit to the 
board a written statement of their grievances and com- 
plaints and agree to continue in business, or at work, 
until the decision of said board is rendered. The board 
shall then investigate the case thoroughly, and take testi- 
mony in relation thereto, and shall have power to admin- 
ister oaths, and to issue subpoenas for the attendance of 
witnesses, and the production of books and papers. The 
decision shall be made within ten days after the close of 
the investigation, and a copy shall be served on each of 
the parties. Whenever a strike or lockout shall occur or 
is seriously threatened, the board shall proceed to the 
locality and communicate with the parties to the dispute 
and endeavor to effect an amicable settlement of it. The 
board shall make a report to the governor annually. The 
members shall receive as compensation five dollars per 
day and expenses. 

The law is the same to-day (G. S. 1902, sees. 4708- 

4713). 

This act, with its eight sections, is quite formidable 
looking on the statute book. One is surprised to find that 
the board for which it provides has been all but a farce. 
In 1896 it was "called to act in an official capacity in but 
one instance," and failed to effect a settlement in this 
one.^ In 1897 the report of the Bureau of Labor Sta- 
tistics (p. 12) said: 

"The State Board of Mediation and Arbitration have 
prepared no official report, the services of the Board not 
having been required for the adjustment of difficulties 
between employer and employed." 

Nothing more is recorded of the Board until 1903, 
when it made its first report. In this report it says : 

"No reports or records of the action of the former 
board have come to us, and we are informed by the Sec- 
retary of that Board that none are in existence." 

Since, previous to 1903, the Board had nothing to 

^ Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1896, p. 14. 



595] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 183 

report except failures, we are not surprised at their con- 
tinued violation of that part of the act which required 
them to report to the governor annually. 

In 1903 the Board arbitrated its first and only case. 
This was a dispute between the Master Bakers' Associa- 
tion of New Haven and Union No. 11 of the journeyman 
bakers of the same place. Not a large number of men 
was concerned. They had struck and their places had 
been filled largely by non-union men. Both parties to 
the dispute accepted the decision of the Board, which, 
among other things, provided that the master bakers 
should employ only union men. A disagreement arose, 
later, over the proper interpretation of this provision. 
The master bakers held that it referred only to men em- 
ployed in the future, while the union claimed that under 
this provision the non-union men employed during the 
strike should be discharged. The Board decided this 
point in favor of the union, and some of the shops with- 
drew from the Master Bakers' Association rather than 
abide by the decision.^ The Board recognized that in 
this case its efforts were not wholly successful. Its report 
for this year says : 

"Summarizing its work for the few months it has been 
in existence, the Board has arbitrated one important case 
of labor difficulty with a substantial measure of success." 

"In a number of other cases it has exerted an influence, 
which is believed to have contributed somewhat to the 
settlement of controversies, and the amelioration of trou- 
ble-breeding conditions, although such influence was not 
conspicuous or measurable." 

The report of the Board for 1904 says : 

"In no instance has the Board been called upon to 
arbitrate any contention. ..." "Whatever of good 
the Board may have accomplished this year has been by 
the influence it has been able to exert through suggestions 

^ Report State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, 1903. 



184 American Economic Association [596 

which carry weight because of the fact that it is the rep- 
resentative of the interest which the general pubHc has 
in any and every labor trouble." 

Thus, at the end of nine years/ 1896- 1904, the State 
Board of Mediation and Arbitration has to its credit the 
partial settlement of one small strike, and whatever of 
general influence it may have exerted in a few other cases. 
The partial settlement of this one small strike and this 
general influence have cost the State $889.37.^ Plainly, 
mediation and arbitration in this State have failed. 

Why has arbitration been so unsuccessful in Connec- 
ticut? This has been due largely to a lack of confidence 
in the Board. Neither employers nor employees have 
had confidence in it. Where the Board has tendered its 
services usually it has been informed that they were not 
desired. There has been little public interest in arbitra- 
tion. The sentiment of the public has been to allow em- 
ployers and employees to settle their difficulties in their 
own way, without public interference. 

The Board has been a failure. In Connecticut em- 
ployers and employees are going on, settling their dis- 
putes in the old way. This is regrettable. Strikes, boy- 
cotts, lockouts, blacklisting, etc., are war measures, and 
are recognized as such, even by the most radical of those 
who resort to them. These men do not justify the use 
of such measures except as a last resort. They are 
recognized by all as being crude weapons for civilized 
men to wield. How a contest between employees and 
their employer will be settled, where such weapons are 
used, often depends on which is the stronger, the anarchy 
on the one side or the monopoly on the other. The pres- 
ent tendency in the civilized world is toward arbitration, 
reasoning, and the peaceable adjustment of labor dis- 



* The report for 1905 was not published when this was written. 
^ Reports of Comptroller, 1897-1904. 



597] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 185 

putes, and away from this barbaric and destructive settle- 
ment by brute force. 

Another reason why arbitration has failed in Connec- 
ticut is that the people have not exerted their influence 
and demanded that there be an attempt to settle labor 
disputes in a civilized manner. They have not become 
convinced themselves, and hence have not tried to con- 
vince others, that they are a party to any dispute which 
threatens the general welfare. On this question of public 
right in private property. Chief Justice Waite, of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, held that, 

"Property does become clothed with a public interest 
when used in a manner to make it of public consequence, 
and to affect the community at large. When, therefore, 
one devotes his property to a use in which the public has 
an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest 
in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the 
public for the common good, to the extent of the interest 
he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by dis- 
continuing the use ; but so long as he maintains the use, 
he must submit to the control."^ 

Whatever objections there may be to the general ac- 
ceptance of this principle, there is little question but that 
the State, legally, may declare itself a party to every 
dispute in which a corporation, created by the State or 
doing business by permission of the State, is concerned. 
This legal right of the State is strengthened by a natural 
one, where the corporation has been granted a franchise 
of a monopolistic nature, such as that of a street railway 
company. The State may dictate the plane upon which 
corporations, at least, shall settle their disputes with their 
employees. It is very questionable whether it has any 
right to dictate such terms to members of a non-incor- 
porated labor union. 

The people have a right to continuous service from these 

° Quoted in North Amer. Rev., 175 : 598. 



i86 American Economic Association [598 

quasi-public corporations. To enforce this right and to 
protect pubhc interests, compulsory arbitration, theoreti- 
cally, is justifiable and proper. But while, theoretically, 
compulsory arbitration in such cases is justifiable, practi- 
cally, it should not be attempted in Connecticut at the 
present time. Voluntary arbitration is first in the natural 
order of progress. Individualism and love of personal 
liberty are still too strong among all classes in this coun- 
try for compulsory arbitration to be acceptable. Neither 
employees nor employers are strongly in favor of it as 
a means of settling their difficulties. This lack of con- 
fidence in its justice and efficiency by those it would 
primarily affect would prove a formidable obstacle to its 
success.^ Then, compulsory arbitration never has been 
fully tested. Even in New Zealand it is still in the experi- 
mental stage. It still has to withstand the test of a few 
lean years. Should it prove successful there, this fact 
would not be conclusive evidence that it would be a success 
under the different conditions that obtain in this country. 
There is great reason to doubt the ability of any board of 
arbitration accurately to fix wages, prices, etc. If wages 
and prices were fixed and enforced arbitrarily but not 
accurately, the result would be the destruction of industry. 
One of the chief objections to compulsory arbitration in 
this country is the impossibility of enforcing awards 
against non-incorporated labor unions. "... Com- 
pulsory arbitration implies the definite incorporation of 
trade unions as legal companies liable to be sued for the 
action of all persons who can be represented as their 
agents."^ 

Strict compulsory arbitration may be put aside for 
theorists and for the future. Our present system of 
voluntary mediation and arbitration has proven a failure. 

'J. A. Hobson, North. Amer. Rev., 175: 604. 
®J. A. Hobson, North Amer.. Rev., 175: 604. 



599] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 187 

May we not discover a system between these two that 
will avoid the legal and other difficulties encountered by 
the one, and the inherent weakness and inefficiency of the 
other ? Any system of arbitration which will be approved 
by all classes in Connecticut sufficiently to be effective, 
must contain little compulsion and must reserve to the 
disputants the final decision, and the ultimate right to 
fight the matter out in their old barbaric way if they deem 
it necessary. It must provide for an arbitration board 
in which the disputants will have perfect confidence. It 
should take account, also, of the interest the public has in 
all serious labor disputes. The board should be a tempo- 
rary one, chosen by the disputants themselves. A perma- 
nent board cannot be sufficiently well acquainted with the 
conditions in all the industries of the State to arbitrate 
promptly and intelligently any dispute that may arise. 
Neither employers nor employees care to trust their inter- 
ests to a board that is not acquainted with the industry; 
and they have little confidence in a board appointed by a 
political officer. They would have more faith in a board 
selected by themselves, and would be more frank with it, 
and would more readily abide by its awards. Employers 
and employees should be required to submit the disputed 
questions to such a board, and make an honest attempt at 
arbitration before resorting to a strike or a lockout.^ 

*"If society has not — formally or informally — provided adequate 
means of redress, no one can blame the individual for defending his 
own rights in his own way. But a bona Me offer of arbitration 
should always be required before society condones an appeal to force. 
No strike which has not been preceded by a genuine request for arbi- 
tration, and by failure of such request, should for a moment have the 
support of public opinion. . . . Just in proportion as keener gen- 
eral interest and more efficient public sentiment afford adequate 
means of peaceful redress, resort to strikes is unjustifiable. It is not 
the right to strike but the need to strike that society will seek to 
disprove." — Edward Cummings, Quart. Jour. Econ., 9: z^2, 363. 



1 88 American Economic Association [600 

This much compulsion might not be too distasteful to 
the disputants, and means might be found for enforcing 
it, even against non-incorporated labor organizations. 
Such arbitration would prevent hasty action, and in many 
cases doubtless would obviate strikes, lockouts, etc., with 
their attendant evils. One of the difficulties of arbitra- 
tion often is that the employees have struck and failed to 
force the acceptance of their demands before trying arbi- 
tration.^^ Were arbitration tried before the disputants 
became embittered by a strike, often it would be success- 
ful, where now it fails. By such a plan the disputants 
still would settle their own disputes but, if possible, on a 
plane and in a manner approved by society, if not by 
their old methods. Thus the right ultimately to fight 
for what they deemed their rights would not be taken 
from them. 



Edward Cummings, Quart. Jour. Econ., 9 : 353. 



CHAPTER VIIL 



THE UNION LABEL. 



One of the chief elements of strength of any labor 
organization or movement is the sympathy with and sup- 
port of its principles and demands by the general public. 
In order that this sympathy may be most effective 
there must be some means by which it can be expressed 
in a tangible manner. To provide such a means the 
union label was devised. It stands and has always stood 
primarily for organized labor and union conditions, as 
opposed to unorganized labor and unregulated condi- 
tions. In this country the union label was first adopted 
by the cigar makers of California for the purpose of 
enlisting public sympathy and patronage in the support 
of high-class, white labor in competition with low-class, 
unorganized Chinese labor. The label idea spread rap- 
idly, and the label is now in general use by organized 
labor throughout the country. 

Purchasers very largely believe in good conditions for 
workmen. They also desire that the goods they use be 
manufactured under sanitary conditions. With our pres- 
ent system of diversified industry it is impossible for a 
purchaser to know or to investigate these matters for 
himself, in regard to each of his numerous purchases. 
The labor union volunteers to perform this task for him 
as to certain lines of goods. Its seal, the union label, 
placed upon goods is to certify to the purchaser that it 
has investigated and found the goods to have been made 
under union conditions and by union men. If the pur- 

6oi] 189 



190 American Economic Association [602 

chaser wishes to support unionism and union conditions 
he may do so by buying union label goods.^ 

The union label extends to the union laborer a pro- 
tection similar to that granted to the manufacturer by 
the trademark. The trademark secures for the manu- 
facturer that demand for his goods which he has created 
by reason of the peculiar nature, quality or excellence he 
has given them, or because of the advertisement he has 
given them. The label secures to the union laborer any 
advantage that may come to him from the demand for 
union label goods because of the excellence of the work- 
manship in their production, or because of their having 
been produced under union conditions, or because of any 
advertisement the union may have given them. The 
label permits a workman who has no direct proprietary 
interest in the goods on which he works to identify and 
publish to the world his workmanship on those goods, 
and to signify the conditions under which they were 
produced. The label is the workman's trademark and it 
may become as valuable to him as is the trademark of a 
successful manufacturer to its owner. 

With the increased demand for union label goods the 
label attained a large commercial value, and it soon be- 
came the subject of imitation and counterfeit by unscru- 
pulous manufacturers and dealers. The courts held that 
they could not protect the label against such infringe- 
ment, because it was not a trademark and because the 
union was not a dealer in the goods upon which it was 
placed.^ New legislation was necessary to protect it. 
Active agitation for such a law in Connecticut was begun 

^ The use of the label is to strengthen the union. Too often it is 
not a guarantee of excellence of workmanship or product, or of 
better pay, or of a definite improvement in the life of the worker. — 
J. G. Brooks, Bulletin U. S. Department of Labor, March, 1898. 

^ Cigar Maker's Union v. Conhain, 4 Minn., 243 ; Weener v. Bray- 
ton, 152 Mass., loi. 



603] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 191 

by the State Branch of the American Federation of 
Labor in 1891 ; and at their convention in 1892 a resolu- 
tion was adopted, that their legislative committee draw 
up such a bill, and that each affiliated union "appoint a 
committee to consult the representatives in their respec- 
tive districts, and use all honorable means to have them 
support the bill."^ The bill (S. B. 10) was introduced 
in the legislature in 1893, and was referred to the judi- 
ciary committee. Many petitions favoring it were pre- 
sented ; and at the hearing members of the Cigar Makers' 
and Hatters' Unions urged its passage.^ Although there 
was no opposition to the bill before the committee, when 
it came up in the Senate the chairman of the committee^ 
moved its rejection. It was rejected, but, later, through 
the efforts of the legislative committee of the Connecticut 
Branch of the American Federation of Labor, it was 
reconsidered and was passed by both houses.^ 

The act (1893, ch. 162) provides that: 

Whenever any person, association or union of work- 
ingmen has adopted a label, announcing that the goods 
to which it shall be attached were manufactured by such 
person, association or union or by the members of such 
association or union, it shall be unlawful to counterfeit 
such label; and such counterfeiting, or the intentional 
use or display of such a counterfeit, or the unauthorized 
use of the name or seal of any such person, association 
or union, or officer thereof in and about the sale of goods 
or otherwise shall be punished by a fine of from one to 
two hundred dollars, or by imprisonment from three 
months to one year, or both. Such label may be recorded 
in the office of the secretary of state, and the certificate 
of such a record shall be proof of its adoption, in any suit 

^ Reports Annual Conventions Connecticut Branch American Fed- 
eration of Labor, 1891, p. 13; 1892, p. 17. 

* Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1892-93, p. 247. 

" Senator Fox, of New Haven. 

° Report Annual Convention Connecticut Branch American Fed- 
eration of Labor, 1893, p. 23. 



192 American Economic Association [604 

under the act. The manufacture, use, display, or sale of 
any counterfeit or imitation of such a label may be en- 
joined; and the court shall award damages for such 
manufacture, use or display. 

The law remains unchanged (G. S. 1902, sees. 4907- 
4912). 

This law was secured principally through the efforts 
of the cigar makers, who wished to secure their blue 
label and to avoid competition with tenement-made 
cigars. The subject of labels has received more atten- 
tion than any other in the Annual Conventions of the 
Connecticut Branch of the American Federation of 
Labor. The discussions often have become animated 
and such motions as the following one, passed at the 
convention in 1900, have not been uncommon: 

"A committee of three be appointed to examine the 
hats, shoes, and clothes of the delegates present and ascer- 
tain if they have the union label. "^ 

A committee of three was forthwith appointed and 
began its investigation at once, while the general discus- 
sion of union labels went on. The committee reported 
that the labels of all crafts were in general use by the 
delegates present.^ 

Union men were urged to buy only union label goods, 
and the convention of 1902 adopted the following reso- 
lution : 

''Resolved, That no delegate shall be eligible to a seat 
in the future conventions of the Connecticut Federation 
of Labor unless all of her or his wearing apparel shall 
bear the union label."^ 

The label is used on their goods by almost all the man- 
ufacturers of cigars in Connecticut, and, it is said,^^ by 

' Report of Convention, 1900. 

*At a previous convention one hat found without the label was 
destroyed then and there. 

* Report of Convention, 1902. 
" Secretary, Connecticut Branch American Federation of Labor. 



605] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 193 

all but two of the hat manufacturers of the State. A 
large number of publishing companies use it also. The 
other trades have not secured its extensive use. In all 
approximately twenty-five different unions have filed 
labels in the office of the Secretary of State, since the 
passage of the law in 1893.^^ The hatters, cigar makers, 
and the printers have worked hardest to secure the gen- 
eral use of the label, and they have received most benefit 
from its use. The reports of the Connecticut Bureau of 
Labor Statistics for the years 1902, 1903, and 1904 bear 
the union label of the printers. The reports of the other 
State departments do not have the label on them. It is 
doubtful whether the State should further commit itself 
on this question than it has in the passage of this law. 

The law plainly is one in the interests of organized 
labor. While its general application in phraseology pre- 
vents it being declared class legislation, in practice it is 
used for the direct benefit and protection of one class 
only — organized labor. 

One important case has been decided under this statute. 
It is commonly known as the hatter's case, or as the label 
case.^^ In this case the United Hatters of North Amer- 
ica charged C. H. Merritt & Son, hat manufacturers of 
Danbury, Connecticut, with adopting and using in their 
factory, and registering as alleged trademarks, eight 
different labels, all made in imitation and counterfeit of 
the adopted and registered label of the plaintiff's associa- 
tion, in violation of the label law (G. S. sees. 4907, 
4910), and for the purpose of "palming off" their hats 
as and for union-made hats. 

From 1885 to and including 1893 the defendants had 
conducted their factory as a union factory and had been 
permitted to use in their hats the label of the United 

" Estimate made by office of Secretary of State. 

" Martin Lawlor v. C. H. Merritt & Son, 78 Conn., 630. 



194 American Economic Association [606 

Hatters. Since this time they had run an "open shop'* 
and had not been authorized to use the label. On March 
15, 1904, they registered with the Secretary of State 
eight different trademarks. Each of these "trademarks" 
possesses in common with the genuine label of the United 
Hatters, "its manilla color, its rectangular shape, its 
corrugated edge, its two concentric circles, with printed 
matter between the two circles, forming a frame for an 
interior space partly filled with pictorial devices; all 
printed in black on said manilla ground, and said printed 
matter and other devices indicating that the hats are 
union made. Each of said labels is further characterized 
by the fact that the word 'registered' is printed in a 
curved line underneath said concentric circles."^^ 

The phrases or legends used on these eight trade- 
marks resemble that used on the genuine label of the 
hatters, — "The United Hatters of North America," — 
and yet are different. They are: 

"Honest Labor — Honest Wages. Fair." 
"Skilled Labor of America." 
"By Industry we Thrive." 
"Not made by a Trust." 
"Union gives Strength. America." 
"Justice, Unity, Equity. America." 
"United we hold — Divided we fall." 
"Hand united to Hand." 
Contrary to the usual custom of manufacturers of 
placing their trademarks inside the crown of the hat at 
the top thereof, the defendants placed these "trademarks" 
under the sweat-band, and both pasted and sewed them 
on the inside of the hats opposite the bow-knot of the 
hat band, in the same manner and in the same place in 
which the label of the United Hatters of North America 
is placed. 
^* Brief of John K. Beach, counsel for plaintiff. 



607] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 195 

In the trial court^^ the judge held that each one of the 
defendant's eight "trademarks" was an "imitation" of 
the union label of the United Hatters. He held, also, 
that the defendants in adopting and using their eight 
"trademarks" "had no intention of deceiving or defraud- 
ing the public, or the United Hatters of North America. 
. . . or of counterfeiting" their label. 

An injunction was granted the plaintiffs, restraining 
the defendants from the further use of the eight trade- 
marks. Both parties appealed, the defendants from the 
injunction and the plaintiffs from the refusal of the court 
to find certain facts as requested. 

The complaint, among other things, states that the 
association adopted for its protection a label to be applied 
to hats made by its members, to announce to the public 
that hats bearing that label were made by them. In the 
demurrer to this complaint, one of the reasons assigned 
is, "because said label or trademark does not announce 
that goods to which such label or trademark is attached, 
were manufactured by a member or members of the 
United Hatters of North America." 

The following are the important parts of the decision 
of the Supreme Court. ^^ 

"The plaintiff has no right of action except by virtue 
of the statute on which he professes to sue. It was 
therefore necessary to bring this case within the terms of 
the statute. That statute protects, in favor of such an 
association as the United Hatters of North America, a 
label announcing that goods to which it may be attached 
were manufactured by a member or members of the 
association. The label in respect to which protection is 
sought by this action contains no such announcement." 

"If it could be construed as announcing in any way 
who manufactured the hats to which it might be attached, 
the announcement would be that they were manufactured 

" Superior Court of Fairfield County. 

"Baldwin, Judge, opinion rendered March 8, 1906, 78 Conn., 630. 



196 American Economic Association [608 

by the United Hatters of North America. The com- 
plaint, however, shows that such was not the intended 
meaning of the words used, for the recital of the objects 
for which the association was formed discloses that they 
do not include the manufacture of hats, and it is alleged 
that the label was adopted 'for the purpose of announcing 
to the public that hats bearing said label were made by 
the members of the association,' and is issued for the use 
of certain hat manufacturers who employ its members in 
making and finishing hats." 

"It appears from this that the association is not and 
never was a manufacturer of hats ; that its members do 
not OAvn the hats made by them; that its label was orig- 
inally adopted and registered by 'The Co-operative Hat 
Company,' which was at the time engaged in the manu- 
facture of hats in this State; that it was assigned to the 
United Hatters of North America; that the latter allows 
its use only by manufacturers employing exclusively 
'union' labor; that it has extensively advertised and rep- 
resented to the public that this label is used only on 
hats manufactured in ^union' factories conducted under 
certain rules prescribed by the association, calculated to 
insure good sanitary conditions and good work; that in 
a few cases its use has been allowed on hats made in 
non-union factories not conducted under these rules, 
when, before the hats went out of the factory, it had 
become a 'union' factory; and that the defendants, in 
adopting and using their labels, had no intention of de- 
ceiving or defrauding the public or the association or its 
members, nor of counterfeiting its label, and have never 
represented hats, to which they were affixed to be hats 
containing the label of the association. 

"So far as the facts found vary from the facts alleged, 
they tend to weaken the plaintiff's case, by showing that 
the association has sometimes allowed the label to be used 
in hats not even made by its members, although sold by a 
'union' manufacturer, and that the defendants have been 
guilty of no fraud. That the label of the United Hatters 
of North America has never been used nor intended for 
use on hats manufactured by the association remains 
clear. 



609] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 197 

''Under General Statutes, § 4907, a label of such a kind 
became the proper subject of equitable protection, and any 
member of the association owning it (although neither 
he nor the association might be a manufacturer or owner 
of the goods to which it was attached, nor a dealer in 
them) was invested with a right of action. But the label 
on which the plaintiff relies in this action is one of a 
very different character. Instead of announcing that the 
hat to which it may be affixed has been manufactured by 
a member or members of the United Hatters of North 
America, if it announces anything as to its origin, it is 
that it was manufactured by the association itself. It was 
not, therefore, such a label as can support his action. 
His complaint should have been held to be insufficient." 

According to this decision the hatters' label does not 
state with sufficient clearness that the hats to which it 
may be attachel were made by members of the United 
Hatters of North America, that the union may claim for 
it protection under the label law. 

The printers' label — <5^^^ — seems to be deficient 
in the same respect. It is questionable whether many of 
the labels now in use in Connecticut will be able to stand 
this test. 

In their brief in the above case the counsel^^ for the 
plaintiff assert that: 

" . . . The Legislature, by giving trades unions 
the same protection in their labels as manufacturers have 
in their trademarks, has necessarily invested them with 
the rights of competitors in business, so far as concerns 
the drumming up of trade for union goods, at the ex- 
pense of non-union goods. . . . Interference in trade 
by unions of workingmen is no longer necessarily an 
unlawful conspiracy on the broad ground that as work- 
men they cannot possibly have a lawful interest in divert- 
ing trade. When the law gives to a union the right to 
adopt 'for its protection' a trademark, and assimilates its 
right of property in the mark to that of a manufacturer 
or dealer in his trademark, or trade dress ; it necessarily 
"John K. Beach and Howard W. Taylor. 



198 American Economic Association [610 

confers on the union the right, by all legitimate means, 
to induce third persons to buy goods bearing the union 
label, and to accept no others. . . . The United Hat- 
ters have an interest in diverting trade to union-made 
goods bearing these labels, as legitimate as that of com- 
mission merchants in diverting trade to the goods in 
which they deal. Means which are legitimate in the one 
case must also be legitimate in the other case." 

This point was not touched upon in the above decision. 
If the courts hold this opinion in regard to the right of 
labor unions to "drum up" trade in the goods which bear 
their label to be correct, then this law becomes of far 
more than passing importance. It gives union men an 
extra weapon. They may now deal with their employer 
both as laborers and as competitors on the market. As 
the former they have the right to leave his employ and 
peaceably to persuade others not to enter it ; as the latter 
they have the right to withdraw their custom from him 
and to solicit, by advertisement and other peaceable 
means, his other customers to leave him and patronize 
them. Under such a construction of this law, may not 
union men, while keeping within their legal right to solicit 
trade in the goods which bear their label, practically 
boycott the goods of their employer or another? 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE barbers' license LAW. 

This law has a special interest for the two thousand 
or more barbers who are affected directly by it. It has an 
interest for workmen in general because it is the only 
instance in which Connecticut has required a workman 
to be licensed to pursue his trade. It is of interest to the 
general public as a health ordinance. To the student it 
is interesting because it is an advanced step in state regu- 
lation, because of the questioned constitutionality of such 
a law, and because of its monopolistic effect. It is of 
present interest to all because of its newness and because 
of the manner in which it has been administered. For 
these reasons the writer has made a careful study of the 
operation and administration of the law in this State.^ 

The barber's license law was secured through the ef- 
forts of the barbers themselves — mainly through the 
efforts of the journeyman barber's unions. Their reasons 
for wanting such a law may be reduced to three : 

1. They wished to avoid competition with cheap and 
unskilled labor. 

2. They wished to keep out the "floating" barbers 
from other States. 



^ For this purpose the barbers in approximately one hundred and 
fifty shops, scattered over the State, were interviewed. Two mem- 
bers of the present board of barber examiners, and two ex-members 
of the board were interviewed. Visits were made to the offices of 
the Governor, the Attorney- General, the Treasurer, and the Comp- 
troller for special information concerning the reports and doings of 
the board of examiners, and copies of their reports were made in the 
office of the Secretary of State. 

6ii] 199 



200 American Economic Association [612 

3. They Avished to drive out the five-cent shops. 

These three reasons are summed up in the first. The 
* 'floating" barbers who came from other States were 
largely of the "tramp" class. They, it is claimed, often 
were inferior workmen. They would work for low 
wages for a few days, get on a spree, and then drift on. 
Competition with them was injurious to the self-respect- 
ing barber, and their presence here lowered the standards 
of the trade. Then, the unions wished to avoid competi- 
tion with the unskilled workmen turned out by barber 
schools, and with those who had never served an ap- 
prenticeship. They wished, also, to drive out the five- 
cent shops, probably more because of their tendency to 
lower wages and prices, and because they were usually 
"scab" (non-union) shops than because they were unsan- 
itary. So long as barber schools could turn out full- 
fledged barbers in six weeks, or men could begin the 
trade without any training whatever, and so long as 
"tramp" and non-union barbers could come freely from 
other States, and so long as there was a large number 
of five-cent and "scab" shops it was impossible for the 
barbers' unions of Connecticut to gain such control over 
the trade as to enable them to raise the standard of prices 
and conditions to the point they desired. 

It is the opinion of the writer that it was the hope 
that the proposed law would so regulate this competition 
as to give the unions the desired control that prompted 
them to strive so earnestly for its passage. Probably 
very few of them were really solicitous about the public 
health. 

Agitation for such a law began as early as 1896. That 
year the delegate of a barbers' union of Meriden^ re- 

^ Local No. 88 of the Journeymen Barbers' International Union of 
America. 



613] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 201 

ported to the annual convention of the Connecticut 
Branch of the American Federation of Labor as follows :^ 

"Our union believes that all barbers in the State should 
organize and secure legislation regulating the sanitary 
condition of barber shops, especially five-cent shops, as 
in our opinion they are on a par with sweat or tenement 
house cigar shops. We appeal to the Legislative Com- 
mittee of this State Branch to take the matter into con- 
sideration when they meet to take action on labor legis- 
lation." 

The Convention passed a resolution instructing their 
Legislative Committee to try to secure the passage of a 
law for bettering the sanitary condition of barber shops. 

In 1898 a New London union^ communicated its de- 
sire for such a law to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.^ 
The benefits hoped for were stated as follows : 

"Under such laws and regulations, you would have 
skilled workmen, which would be a benefit and protection 
to the patrons, as well as those who have to compete with 
unskilled and cheap labor." 

The passage of a license law was secured in 190 1 
through the efforts of the Connecticut State Barbers' 
Protective Association, supported by the barbers' unions 
throughout the State. A few of the "boss" barbers sup- 
ported the bill, others opposed it. 

The following are the principal provisions of the act 
(1901, ch. 132) : 

All barbers shall be licensed. The Governor shall 
appoint biennially a board of three examiners, who shall 
have been citizens of the State for three years and prac- 
ticing barbers for five years. "Each member of the board 
shall receive a compensation of five dollars per day for 
actual service, and three cents per mile for each mile 

^Report Annual Convention Connecticut Branch American Fed- 
eration of Labor, 1896. 

* Local No. 136 of the Journeymen Barbers' International Union 
of America. 

^ Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1898, p. 139. 



202 American Economic Association [614 

actually traveled in attending the meetings of the board, 
which compensation shall be paid out of any moneys in 
the hands of the treasurer of said board; Provided, that 
the said compensation and mileage shall in no event be 
paid out of the state treasury." The board shall report 
annually to the Governor a statement of its receipts and 
disbursements and of its doings and proceedings. The 
board shall hold public examinations at least four times 
in each year in at least four different cities in the State. 
Practicing barbers shall be registered upon payment of a 
fee of one dollar. All others shall pay a fee of five dol- 
lars and take an examination. The applicant must satisfy 
the examiners that he is above the age of nineteen years, 
of good moral character, and free from contagious dis- 
eases ; that he has either studied the trade for three years 
as an apprentice or in a barber school, or has practiced 
the trade for three years ; that he is skilled in the prepa- 
ration of the tools, and in shaving and hair cutting; and 
that he has sufficient knowledge of the common diseases 
of the face and skin. Any person may serve as an ap- 
prentice or be a student in a barber school. Each person 
who passes the examination shall be given a license card 
which shall be posted in a conspicuous place in front of 
his chair. The board may revoke any license for "gross 
incompetency or for having or imparting any contagious 
disease." To shave and trim the beard or cut the hair of 
any person for hire or reward constitutes practicing the 
occupation of barber within the meaning of the act. 
Practicing without license, employing a barber who has 
no license, or violating any of the provisions of the act 
is punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred 
dollars. 

The administration of this law has been left to the 
board of managers appointed under the act. The manner 
in which this board has administered the law has shown 
its members to be inefficient, incompetent, and unworthy 
of the trust placed in them. Their record is a disgrace 
to themselves and a discredit to the State. Many of those 
who have taken the examinations say they are not thor- 
ough and that many incompetent workmen pass them 



615] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 203 

successfully. The applicant's word as to his experience, 
age, etc., is accepted, and many are granted licenses who 
have not had the required three years' training. The 
secretary of a barber's union in Hartford told of two 
young men in that city who were granted licenses with 
only six months' experience. An ex-secretary of a bar- 
ber's union in New Britain says he has known of men 
who had never worked in a shop securing licenses. Nu- 
merous similar cases have been reported throughout the 
State. Many are allowed to practice without licenses. 
For two years ten or twelve barbers of Stamford defied 
the efforts of the board to make them take out licenses, 
and were not prosecuted. A barber in Stafford Springs 
practiced over ten months the past year without a license. 
A former secretary of a barbers' union of Middletown 
kept a barber from Massachusetts for nine months with- 
out a license. Another barber of Middletown boasted of 
having worked in the State for five years without a 
license. One proprietor on State Street in Hartford says 
he employs men without licenses and intends to continue 
doing so. 

In a number of shops barbers whose licenses have ex- 
pired are practicing. In a Stamford shop a license for 
the year 1903- 1904 is still posted ''in a conspicuous place" 
in front of the barber's chair. The following case shows 
the careless manner in which the board deals out licenses : 
In Connecticut each license is numbered and the barber 
keeps the same number from year to year. His name 
and number are recorded in the register kept by the 
board. A barber may have his license renewed each 
year by the payment of one dollar. In 1903 a barber, 
who was licensed in New York, came to Connecticut to 
work. He never took an examination here, as the law 
requires in such cases, but sent his name and the number 
of his New York license, together with the renewal fee of 



204 American Economic Association [6i6 

one dollar, to the board and requested that his license be 
renewed. The request was complied with and he was 
sent a renewal license for the year 1904- 1905, numbered 
the same as his New York license, 8 140 1 The highest 
number on a genuine Connecticut license is slightly over 
^000. Evidently this renewal was granted without ever 
referring to the record. It was renewed again for the 
year 1905-1906 and is now posted ''in a conspicuous 
place" in front of the barber's chair.^ 

Complaints have been made to the writer by barbers 
that they have sent money for a renewal of their licenses, 
and have received no reply, and that when they inquired 
the reason they were told by the treasurer of the board 
that the money had never been received. A former mem- 
ber of the board related a case in which two men sent 
their money in the same letter. One got a license, the 
other did not. 

The board has a practice of signing a large number of 
license certificates at one time, even five hundred at one 
sitting. These are filled out and sent by the secretary 
as occasion demands. He does not report to the other 
examiners to whom they were sent.'^ 

Under the law of 1901 it was not necessary to renew 
the licenses. Hence after the first year the only receipts 
were the fees paid by new applicants. These were not 
numerous. Therefore in 1902 the board in its annual 
report to the governor recommended the following 
amendments to the law:^ 

1. That barbers be required to use an antiseptic solu- 
tion for the purpose of sterilizing their tools. 

2. That the board be given power to enter and inspect 
the shops as to their sanitary condition and cleanliness. 

® Case of John Czyzewski, No. 149 Colony Street, Meriden. 
^ Related to writer by a former member of the board. 
* Report of Barber Examiners, 1902 — Office Secretary of State of 
Connecticut. 



617] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 205 

3. That, for the maintenance of the law, in addition 
to the fee for examination, a Hcense fee of one dollar a 
year for renewal of each license be required. 

In accordance with this recommendation the board of 
examiners were empowered (1903, ch. 130) to adopt 
rules for the sterilizing of tools, and rules to improve the 
sanitary condition of the shops. These rules when ap- 
proved by the State Board of Health were to have "full 
force and effect." They wxre given pov/er, also, to enter 
and inspect barber shops as to their sanitary condition. 
Unsanitary shops were to be reported to the local health 
officer, who was to order them put in a sanitary condi- 
tion or closed. It was provided that all licenses should 
expire each year and be renewed upon the payment of a 
fee of one dollar, if application for such renewal was 
made within thirty days after the expiration of the 
license. Any licensed barber who should practice after 
the expiration of his license, or fail to comply with the 
rules adopted by the board, forfeited his right to a license 
and was subject to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars. 

Under this act the examiners have pretended to inspect 
the barber shops, but these inspections have never been 
thorough and many shops have been skipped entirely. 
Others, the proprietors say, have not been inspected for 
two years. Some of these shops, for example the five- 
cent shops on State and Front Streets in Hartford, are 
in a very unsanitary condition and should be closed or 
cleaned up. The law is weak in permitting, instead of 
requiring, the examiners to enter and inspect the shops. 

The board also issued a set of sanitary rules in accord- 
ance with the act of 1903. There are nine of these. 
Seven of them are perfectly proper and are obeyed by 
most of the barbers. The other two are unpractical and 
are not obeyed even by the best barbers. The first of 
these provides that. 



2o6 American Economic Association [6i8 

"No razor, pair of shears or clippers used upon any 
person, shall be used upon any other person until such 
razor or pair of shears or clippers shall be sterilized by 
immersion, not less than five minutes, in one per cent, 
solution of tricesol." 

The other provides that, 

''Every barber shall wash his hands thoroughly before 
serving a customer, and on serving another customer 
shall again wash his hands." 

Both of these rules are mere laughing stock for the 
barbers. The writer found only six men, out of over 
three hundred, who pretend to follow the first of these 
rules, and only one or two who habitually follow the 
second. 

By this law of 1903 (ch. 130) the application for re- 
newal of a license must be received by the board within 
thirty days after the expiration of such license. In 1905 
(ch. 89) this was changed to, ''the board of examiners 
may renew any barber's license if application for such 
renewal be received by said board within two years after 
the expiration of such license." After this amendment 
went into effect the board of examiners still continued 
their practice of requiring barbers who had not applied 
for a renewal of their license within thirty days after its 
expiration to pay five dollars and take out a new license. 
Some Stamford barbers refused to pay the five dollars 
and were arrested. The prosecuting attorney of Stam- 
ford denounced the practices of the examiners and they 
appealed to the Attorney General for a construction of 
the law. The Attorney General held that they could 
charge no more than one dollar for the renewal of a 
license if application for such renewal was made within 
two years after its expiration. 

The financial affairs of the board of examiners of 
barbers have been handled in the same careless manner as 
their other work. The law provides that they shall elect 



6i9] 



Labor Legislation of Connecticut 



207 



a secretary-treasurer from their own number. No pro- 
vision was made for an assistant and the intent of the 
law must have been that the secretary-treasurer should 
keep the accounts. F or a number of years, however, this 
duty has been delegated to an assistant.^ This assistant 
was paid $410.00 for the year 1904- 1905. Even with 
this assistance the reports of the board made to the 
Governor were full of the most glaring mistakes. Those 
for the years 1902 and 1903 were the worst. The Comp- 
troller undertook to audit them, but found them so full 
of mistakes that he decided to audit all the accounts of 
the board. All their books, papers, and vouchers — "a 
whole basketful of them" — were brought to his office. 
He found the accounts in almost hopeless confusion, 
and when finally he got them straightened out it was 
necessary to make out new reports for the years 1902 and 
1903. The old reports made by the board are still on 
file in the office of the Secretary of State. The following 
shows the corrections made in the reports by the Comp- 
troller : 



Reports for 1902 



Of Board 



Of Comp- 
troller 



Reports for 1903 



Of Board 



Of Comp- 
troller 



Applications for licenses at %i 
Applications for licenses at $5 
Cash on hand at last report, 

Total Receipts, . . 

Postage, 

Sundries, 

Total Disbursements, 
Balance of cash on hand, . 



$131.00 

2,255.00 

326.50 

2,712.50 



$120.00 

2,270.00 

326.48 

2,716.48 



13.91 

2,610.75 

101.75 



14.06 

2,610.90 

105.58 



$1,035.00 

326.50 

3.077.50 

80.49 

37.73 

2,441.57 

635.93 



$1,190.00 

105.58 

3,011.58 

44.49 

21.21 

2,389.05 

622.53 



The mistake of $220.92 in the amount of cash on hand 
at the beginning of the year 1903 was due to bringing 

' The niece of the secretary-treasurer, who teaches school as well 
as keeps books for the Board of Examiners. 



2o8 American Economic Association [620 

forward the cash balance for the year 1901 instead of 
that for the year 1902. The reasons for the difference 
in the amounts received as Hcense fees, and the amounts 
expended for postage and sundries are not so apparent. 
In each of these reports there were five mistakes cor- 
rected, and in the report for 1903 one remains still un- 
corrected.^*^ There is one also in the report for 1904, 
as is shown in the table on next page. 

This summary shows that the annual income from 
licenses is now approximately $3,500.00, and that most 
of this amount is used to remunerate the members of the 
board for their services, and to pay their traveling ex- 
penses. For the year 1904- 1905 a total of 420 days' 
service and 22,057 2-3 miles travel were charged. This 
was sufficient to have secured a careful inspection of all 
the shops and a careful examination of all applicants for 
licenses, had the time and travel been well spent. They 
were not. Two of the examiners often have traveled 
together when inspecting shops. They usually return 
home every night. Often the members go from their 
homes to New Haven and then from there on their tour 
of inspection. This wasteful method takes much extra 
time and travel, but as the examiner gets five dollars for 
each day he works, and three cents for each mile he 
travels (while it costs him only two cents on the rail- 
road), it is not to be supposed that he is concerned about 
extra time and travel. For the year 1902- 1903 one 
member charged for 126 miles travel for each day served, 
and another charged for 121 miles.^"^ We wonder how 
much time they had left each day for real work, and how 
they were able to plan their routes so as to get in such a 



"Each of these reports, with all its mistakes, bears the stamp of 
approval of a committee of the legislature. 
" Report of Board of Examiners of Barbers, 1903. 



m >^ 



;^ - S 

C g «• 

O 2- ^ 
■^ Cu o 

• no 

o 
2 

*H- 
>-i 
o^ 

?r 






W 



» p ST 
^ ^ ?r 

g fT> rt 

S*o o 
a ""^ 

0> CO „ 

<-h <> Q\ 

3 o o 
^ o S 

— -4 to 

fO 10 g. 

D-g • 

P EH 

:5 "> 

n in 

o" 
n> 
o> 
P 

OK? 

3 

c: 
♦o 
a 

1 



X f= O fD X 

. :r ^ ^crq p 
S.p^S"£L3a5- 
^ g c/2 n^ en B' M(S 



P o 



H n>> 



cr re 



C/3 



-^ w 









to vO 



M 0^ 
O t-i 

ji o 



to CXI 
to vO 



M O 

o o 
o ^ 



=€© 



M CMJX 

to Mji' tOOi^IO^J M 

OJ-P^-F^ O^^JCJi C>C04^ 



M 4;^ Ji. 

M 4^ 4i. O (-a 
CO COO O O 



M Mcnoiji. toc>i CO 
UtO JH coco-f^o p 
O^tooiOT OOJ^j O 
-f^UT-O Q 0<-nLriO 



K5 

mO m tO-(^t>i O^O 
ta4i^4iO^ M p 

<!»s^obtnOc^^O 



n 



O O 



m P 
►5* S w w 



3 3 
S »> ^ 

O *" 



S. P 



oo to 
to ^ 




§ 


-t^ 

CO 


8 



0^u\ O 
to en O 
to O O 



M ^J CO 

O W 1-1 

O UT CO 



> 

O 

H 

a 

> 

j« 
w 

hd 
O 
f« 
H 

O 

H 
en 
H 
> 
H 
W 

W 
O 
> 

O 
O 

X 

> 

I— ( 

:^ 
w 

?^ 

CO 

O 

*^ 

w 
> 



2IO American Economic Association [622 

large daily average of miles, in such a small State ! We 
also wonder why, in 1903, when, according to the report 
for that year, only "about eight hundred shops" were 
inspected, the secretary-treasurer found it necessary to 
put in 117 days time, travel 3,996 miles, and, at the same 
time, have an assistant at a cost of $158.00! However, 
the next year he serves 148 days, travels 6,427 1-3 miles, 
and pays his assistant $360.00; and in 1904- 1905 he 
serves 172 days, travels 6,540 miles and pays his assistant 
$410.00! And still some barber shops go uninspected 
and mistakes creep into the accounts !^^ 

With such a record we are not surprised that during 
the past year these examiners were the auditors at a 
meeting at which the Governor, the Attorney General, 
and the Deputy Comptroller were the speakers. The 
writer was informed at the Governor's office that the 
speeches were not for publication. 

What has been the effect of this law upon the barber 
shops and the barbers ? It is generally conceded that the 
sanitary condition of the worst shops has been much 
improved, yet there are many that are still very unsani- 
tary.^^ In cities where they existed the number of five- 
cent shops has declined rapidly. There has been but a 
slight change in the number of barbers in the State since 
the passage of the license law. The census of 1900 gave 
1,907 as the number at that time.^^ In 1901, 1,854 
barbers were registered as practicing the trade when the 
law went into effect.^^ In 1902 there were 451 new 
licenses granted, making the total number in force Sep- 

"In the report for 1902 one examiner is so conscientious that he 
puts in his bill for 9,881 1-3 miles traveled, and loi 17-20 days served. 
Most men would have reported 102 days. 

"For example, the five cent shops on State and Front Streets in 
Hartford. 

*"* Twelfth Census, U. S., volume on Occupations, p. 94. 



623] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 211 

tember 30, 1902, 2,305.^^ Doubtless many of these were 
not practicing. In 1903 there were 1,716 renewals and 
207 new licenses granted, a total of 1,923. In 1904 most 
of the licenses were not renewed until after the report 
was made.^^ Many of these went to swell the number 
given in the last report, 2,165, so that it is impossible to 
determine from the reports the exact number of licenses 
in force September 30, 1905. The number probably was 
not far from that given for 1903, namely, 1,923. Thus, 
though since 1901 more than a thousand licensed barbers 
have come and gone, the number practicing in the State 
at any one time has not varied much from what it was at 
the census of 1900, namely, 1,907. While the law has the 
effect of keeping some barbers out of the State, it may, by 
bettering conditions, cause others to enter the trade as 
apprentices. 

While the law has not decreased the number of bar- 
bers. ^^ probably it has improved the quality of the work- 
men and workmanship by keeping out many of the float- 
ing *'tramp" barbers from other States and by providing 
for an apprenticeship of three years. Wages are higher 
than when the law was passed, but probably this is due 
more to the general prosperity than to any influence of 
the law. 

For some reason the barber trade in Connecticut is 
being given up more and more to the Italians. Very few 
American, Irish-American, or German-American youths 
are learning the trade. On the other hand, there are 
many Italian apprentices. Does not the three-year ap- 
prentice requirement of the law have the effect of hasten- 

^ Reports of Board of Examiners of Barbers, 1901 and 1902. 

^ Only 1,019 licenses were renewed in 1904. There were 287 new 
licenses granted, a total of only 1,306. 

^ There has been a practical decrease as compared with the popu- 
lation of the State, and, some claim, as compared with the demands 
of the trade. 



2 12 American Economic Association [624 

ing this movement?^* Long apprenticeships are not 
popular with American boys. 

The opinions of the barbers of the State concerning the 
license law vary greatly. Visiting the shops, one hears 
almost every conceivable opinion of the law and its work- 
ings. We can best discuss these opinions by dividing the 
barbers into two classes, the "bosses" and the journey- 
men. 

The ''bosses," generally, are strongly opposed to the 
law, because it hampers them in securing help and in 
their dealings with their journeymen. Before the passage 
of the law if a "boss" needed additional men he could 
telegraph to an agency in New York and get them at 
once. Now, the New York barbers hesitate to come to 
Connecticut because they must take an examination, pay 
five dollars for a license and, in many towns, pay another 
five dollars to join the barbers' union. The "bosses" 
claim that for this reason they often find it difficult to 
get men when they need them, or are obliged to accept 
an inferior workman who lives in the State. They claim, 
also, that the unions take advantage of their position and 
dictate terms and conditions. Some of the "boss" bar- 
bers think that in the final analysis the license is a tax on 
their business for which they get no return. This idea 
caused the introduction in the last legislature (1905) of 
a bill which relieved the journeyman from paying a 
license and required each "boss" to pay ten dollars a 
year.^^ Under such a law, it was claimed, the "boss" 

^ The Barbers and Hairdressers of Connecticut : 

Aggregate 1,834 Single and unknown 692 

Native parents 225 Married 1,087 

Foreign parents 489 Widowed 49 

Foreign white 1,043 Divorced 6 

Negro yy 

Twelfth U. S. Census, Volume on Occupations, p. 240. 

^ This bill was strongly supported by Mr. Goldberg, a "boss" 
barber of Waterbury. He favored the ten dollar license as being 



625] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 213 

barber would still pay the tax but would not be hampered 
in securing workmen. 

The majority of the journeymen barbers favor the 
law in principle. They believe that such a law is just 
and proper, and that if it were well enforced it would 
result in great benefit to the trade. They say that it 
prevents the "boss" from discharging his men without 
cause and telegraphing to New York and securing men 
to take their places. They think that it has kept out 
''tramp" barbers, improved the sanitary condition of the 
shops, and raised the standard of workmanship. On the 
other hand, there is a very large minority of the barbers 
who oppose the law. They say they should not be re- 
quired to pay a license for the privilege of pursuing their 
trade and earning their living; that there is no more 
reason for licensing the barber than the butcher ; that the 
public health was never endangered; and that the law 
has had little if any effect on conditions as they existed 
prior to its passage. 

On one point the barbers, both "bosses" and journey- 
men, are largely agreed, i. e., that the law has never been 
carefully and properly administered. The enforcement 
is very frequently denounced as a "farce," and often it 
is said that the main use of the law is to furnish the 
opportunity for "graft," and a "soft snap" for three men. 
Even those who favor the law in principle, and who 
were instrumental in securing its passage, are disgusted 
with its enforcement. A large minority of the barbers 
of the State to-day would vote for a repeal of the law. 

Though ostensibly a public health ordinance, the bar- 
bers' license law was a class measure. As such it has 
partially succeeded. It has strengthened the unions and 

an improvement upon the present license, but claimed there was no 
justification for either. 



214 American Economic Association [626 

has aided them in securing better conditions in the trade. 
But it has done this largely through its monopolistic ten- 
dencies and hence cannot be defended on this ground. 
Monopolistic laws and class legislation are opposed to the 
policy of the State and are dangerous to its industries. 
If the constitutionality of this law is tested it must be 
defended as a health ordinance, and must stand or fall 
on its merits as such. Were conditions in the barber 
shops of the State at the time of the passage of this law 
such as to require such regulations for the protection of 
public health? A disease of the face, popularly known 
as ''barber's itch," was much talked of to arouse public 
sympathy for the act ; but in reality there were compara- 
tively few cases of this disease and most of these were of 
doubtful origin. 2^ The public health probably is in more 
danger from the carelessness of grocers than from that 
of barbers, yet they are not licensed. Before the law of 
1903 (ch. 130) there were no provisions regulating the 
sanitary condition of the shops, or providing for their 
inspection. ^^ Under this law the board of examiners can 
do no more than the local boards of health can do without 
the law. Indeed, under it, the final enforcement of the 
sanitary regulations devolves upon the local health of- 
ficers. What was needed, if anything, was not more law 
and a new commission, but a better enforcement of exist- 
ing sanitary regulations by the local health officers. If 
these officers do their duty there is little need for a special 
commission to look after the sanitary condition of the 
barber shops; and the employers and the customers are 
the best judges as to the skill of the workmen. In the 

^"^ Testimony of numerous barbers of the State. 

" This fact and the provision in the law of 1901 that "in no event" 
should the compensation of the examiners be paid out of the State 
treasury are good evidence that the law of 1901 originated as a class 
measure and not as a health ordinance. 



627] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 215 

opinion of the writer this law cannot be justified as a 
health ordinance. 

If this law is retained on the statute books,^^ it should 
be as a health ordinance and not as a class measure. 
Hence, the provisions which relate to sanitation and 
inspection should be strengthened and, so far as possible, 
those which have a monopolistic tendency should be 
repealed. The board should be required to inspect all 
shops at least once a year, and should be given power to 
close a shop if unsanitary or if the barber is practicing 
without a license. The monopolistic effect of the law 
might be partially obviated by the acceptance of the 
licenses of experienced barbers from other States after 
proper certification by the barber examiners of those 
States. Since employers, generally, acknowledge that 
the law works against their interests, better enforcement 
would probably be secured if the law provided that one of 
the examiners should be appointed from persons recom- 
mended by the non-union journeyman barbers, one from 
persons recommended by the Connecticut State Barbers' 
Protective Association and one from persons recom- 
mended by the "boss" barbers' State association.^^ The 
members of the board should be paid by the State Treas- 
ury, and their remuneration should in no sense be de- 
pendent upon the number of licenses issued or the num- 
ber of miles traveled, as it is at present. The accounts 
should be audited annually; and the reports of the board 
to the Governor should be published with the other public 
documents. The law, at best, confers somewhat of a 
monopolistic privilege upon those licensed, and, hence, it 
is not unjust to require them to pay a small license fee, 
even though the law is retained as a health ordinance. 

^ A similar law in New York was repealed recently. 

^ So far all persons appointed on the board have been "boss" 
barbers, except one, and this one bought a shop two weeks after 
entering upon his duties. 



CHAPTER X. 



CONVICT LABOR. 



The question of the proper method of employment of 
its convicts is one that has been debated and experi- 
mented upon by each of the older States of the Union. 
Some follov^ one system, and some another, and most of 
them have tried several different ones; yet all have not 
been able to agree upon any one system. The various 
interests involved make the question of the proper em- 
ployment of convict labor a many sided one, and one 
difficult of solution. In this chapter will be given the 
experience of Connecticut in her attempts to solve this 
problem. 

The Law. — In Connecticut the legislation concerning 
convict labor has been small in amount and its provisions 
have changed little since the establishment of the State 
Prison at Wethersfield in 1827. An act of that year 
(ch. 27) gave the directors of the prison "power and 
authority to prescribe and direct the course and manner 
of employment of the prisoners committed to said 
prison," and provided that the warden should superin- 
tend the labor and conduct of the prisoners and act as 
the general agent of the prison as to purchases and sales 
therefor, and that he should conduct the business of the 
prison on cash estimates only. These are the principal 
provisions of the present law (G. S. 1902, sees. 2900- 
2901). 

Another provision of the act of 1827 (ch. 2y, sec. 5) 
was that if any prisoner should be retained in prison 

216 [628 



629] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 217 

solely for the costs of prosecution, and in the opinion of 
the directors should be unable to pay said costs, and had 
conducted himself well or should be unable to labor, the 
warden might accept his note for the amount of the costs 
and discharge him ; but if the prisoner had not conducted 
himself well and was able to labor he might be held in 
service to pay such costs; and in this case he should be 
allowed journeyman's wages for like service. This pro- 
vision is the same in the revision of 1902 (sec. 2913), 
except that the warden may remit the amount of the costs 
if the prisoner is unable to pay them. 

In 1836 (ch. 48) it was enacted that any person held 
in the state prison for the non-payment of a fine should 
be allowed fifty dollars per year for his labor. In the 
revision of 1875 (Title 9, ch. i, sec. 9), and in the re- 
vision of 1902 (sec. 2914), the amount of pay is one 
hundred dollars per year. 

Before 1880 the directors had full power in determin- 
ing what industries should be carried on in the prison. 
Certain of the industries that had been carried on there 
had been objected to as being injurious to the same in- 
dustries outside the prison, and to free labor. Others of 
these industries, it was claimed, were not suited to the 
reformation of the prisoners. The report of the Special 
Commission on Contract Convict Labor in Connecticut 
in 1880 (p. 43) says: 

'There is also great need of some safeguard restrict- 
ing the, at present, unlimited power which permits con- 
tracts to be made for convict labor without consulting 
any of the industrial interests of the States." 

"The Commissioners ... all recognize the neces- 
sity of adopting greater safeguards than any now pro- 
vided by law ; safeguards which shall limit this power by 
giving manufacturers and artisans an opportunity to be 
heard whenever new contracts for convict labor are to be 
made." 



2i8 American Economic Association [630 

This Commission presented a bill for an act regulating 
the letting of contracts for convict labor. The act which 
followed (1880, ch. 70) provides: 

"That whenever it shall be proposed to employ fifty or 
more of the prisoners ... by contract or otherwise, 
at any trade or occupation, the directors . . . shall 
give public notice of the fact . . . in . . . the 
papers . . . and shall inquire into the effect of such 
proposed employment upon the interest of the state, the 
moral and physical condition of the prisoner, and upon 
free labor; and . . . shall give a hearing to all who 
may wish to be heard in the matter, and if it shall appear 
. . . that such proposed employment will not be for 
the interest of the state, or will be detrimental to the 
moral or physical condition of the prisoner, or will seri- 
ously injure the citizens of this or any other state engaged 
in such proposed trade or occupation, it shall be pro- 
hibited." 

This law was in the revision of 1888 (sec. 3355), but 
it was carelessly omitted, or purposely excluded, from 
the revision of 1902. The secretary of the present Board 
of Directors of the prison thinks it was not omitted 
through carelessness, but that "it was eliminated in the 
interest of simplicity and condensation and that the act 
was regarded as superfluous." However this may be, 
we must question the propriety of a revision committee 
appointed by one legislature throwing out a law passed 
upon the recommendation of an investigating committee 
appointed by a previous legislature, especially when, as 
in this case, conditions have changed little in the mean- 
time. Open and public bidding for contracts is one of 
the surest guarantees against injurious competition by 
contract convict labor. 

The act of 1880, it is true, was brought into use but a 
few times at most. The proposal, in 1883, to contract 
about sixty men to make shoes, and the piece-price con- 
tract for making shirts, let in 1895, were duly advertised 



631] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 219 

as the act required. The writer has learned of no other 
case in which the proposal to contract convict labor was 
advertised, or in which a hearing was granted on the 
effects of carrying on the proposed industry in the prison. 
However, there may have been a few other cases. Sev- 
eral years previous to the enactment of this law there 
were a number of contractors in the prison and several 
industries were carried on there. These industries were 
given up one by one and the convicts that had been em- 
ployed in them were contracted to certain shoemaking 
firms that held contracts in the prison. At the time the 
law was passed these firms held three or four contracts, 
each terminating at a different time. As these terminated 
they were renewed, and usually for less than fifty men 
each. For several years one firm has held five separate 
contracts for the labor of convicts at shoemaking. As 
each of these contracts was for less than fifty men, the 
law did not require that the intention to let it be adver- 
tised or that a hearing be granted. Whether, as has been 
suggested to the writer by one of the present ofiQcials at 
the prison, these contracts were purposely made for less 
than fifty men each, in order to evade the requirements 
of the act of 1880, the writer is unable to say; but it 
seems that the directors and wardens were never favor- 
able to the act and preferred to have full sway in the 
letting of contracts.^ 

In 1895 (ch. 153) it was enacted that, 

no prisoner in the state should be employed "in or 
about the manufacture or preparation of any drugs, med- 
icines, food or food material, cigars or tobacco, or any 
preparation thereof, pipes, chewing gum, or any other 
article or thing used for eating, drinking, chewing, or 
smoking, or for any other use within or through the 
mouth of any human being." 

*The five contracts in force in 1894 called respectively for 48, 46, 
49, 44 and 49 men. — Report Directors Conn. State Prison, 1894, p. 70. 



2 20 American Economic Association [632 

In the revision of 1902 (G. S. sec. 2902) the provision 
is practically the same. 

This law, under the guise of a health measure, seems 
in reality to have been secured by organized labor, in the 
interests of the cigarmakers.^ Hov^ever, it was merely a 
preventive measure, so far as the manufacture of cigars 
was concerned, as their manufacture in the state prison, 
never extensive, was wholly discontinued in 1878. 

An early law provided that the warden might employ 
the prisoners, "not exceeding ten at a time, outside the 
prison walls." The board of directors, in 1896, finding 
this number insufficient to carry on the farm work outside 
the prison, recommended a change in the law, and, by 
an amendment of 1897 (ch. 103), the warden was per- 
mitted to employ such number of prisoners as might be 
approved by the board of directors outside the prison 
walls, within two miles thereof, under the charge of some 
proper officer of the prison. The law is the same in the 
revision of 1902 (sec. 2901). 

Old Newgate. — About 1705 there was discovered, 
about sixteen miles northwest of Hartford, a rich vein 
of copper ore. A company was formed in 1707 to work 
it, but "after being worked seventy years by free-labor, 
slave-labor, and the imported article, the enterprise was 
abandoned, having bankrupted a score of chartered com- 
panies."^ At this time, 1773, Connecticut was in need 
of greater prison accommodations. The county jails, its 
only penal institutions, were overcrowded and insecure. 
It lacked the means to build a state's prison. "In this 
dilemma some bright spirits suggested employing the 

^The Cigarmakers' Union secured the introduction of the bill. — 
See Report Annual Convention Conn. Branch American Federation 
of Labor, 1895. 

' Lippincotfs, 27: 290, 291; Noah A. Phelps, Hist, of Simshury, 
Granhy, and Canton, pp. 113-119; Richard H. Phelps, Hist, of New- 
gate, p. 23. 



633] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 221 

abandoned copper mine at Simsbury (now East Granby) 
as a convict hold — a suggestion received with great favor 
by the people and adopted by the legislature of 1773."^ 
This new prison, "once the most terrible of modern 
prisons," was named Newgate, after the famous prison 
of that name in London. From 1775 to 1783 it was the 
national prison of the Continental Government,^ and 
from 1790 to 1827 the state prison of Connecticut. 

"The dungeons and cells — the prison proper — were 
one hundred feet beneath the ground; and it was this 
feature that gave the old Newgate its unique and horrible 
character and made it the terror of evil-doers wherever 
its ominous fame was sounded. The entrance to those 
dungeons is by a perpendicular shaft fifty feet deep. . . . 
At the bottom of the shaft a flight of stone steps leads 
down thirty or fifty feet farther to a central chamber, 
which contained the sleeping apartments of the convicts. 
On one side a narrow passage leads down to a well of 
pure water, above which an air-shaft pierces the sand 
stone for seventy feet, until it reaches the surface and 
admits a few cheering rays of light intO' the dungeon. 
Everywhere else a Cimmerian darkness prevails. . . . 
The lowest depth reached is three hundred feet." There 
are three parallel galleries here, eight hundred feet long 
and connected crosswise by passages.^ 

For a time the convicts in old Newgate were employed 
working the mines, but this was soon given up. They 
soon learned to use their picks and shovels in digging a 
way out.'^ Smith shops for the manufacture of nails 
were then operated in the caverns. In 1780 workshops 



*C. B. Todd, Lippincott's, 27: 291; Noah A. Phelps, Hist, of 
Simsbury, Granby, and Canton, pp. 120, 121. 

'"It is interesting to note that the first commitment of prisoners 
of this class was made by General Washington," Ibid., 292. See, 
also, Noah A. Phelps, Hist, of Simsbury, Granby, and Canton, p. 125 ; 
Richard H. Phelps, Hist, of Newgate, pp. 76, 77. 

° Lippincott's, 27 : 290. 

'' Ibid., p. 291 ; Richard H. Phelps, Hist, of Newgate, p. 81. 



2 22 American Economic Association [634 

were erected above ground for the employment of the 
convicts. "Their employment consisted in making nails, 
barrels, shoes, wagons, doing job work, farming and 
working on the tread mill."^ ''All were allowed to work 
for themselves or others after their daily tasks were 
finished, and in that way some of them actually laid up 
considerable money."® In 1825 a committee of the legis- 
lature, appointed to inspect the condition of Newgate 
Prison, said in its report : 

"The prisoners are, on arriving at the prison, placed 
to the trade to which they have been accustomed. If they 
have no trade, they are employed as waiters, common 
laborers, and perform duty on the Tread-Mill. There 
are Waggon and Machine makers 9 — Nailers 16 — Black- 
smiths 5 — Shoemakers 22 — Taylors 2 — Coopers 11 — 
Stone Cutters 3 — common laborers 23 — the others are 
either waiters, cooks, etc., or are old and infirm." 

The industries in Newgate seem to have been carried 
on under the public account system. For several years 
before its abandonment the prison cost the State over 
seven thousand dollars annually for its maintenance. 

Kendall, who visited Newgate in 1807, "when it was 
at its best estate," says :^ 

"On being admitted into the gaol-yard, I found a 
sentry under arms within the gate and eight soldiers 
drawn up in a line in front of the gaoler's house. A bell, 
summoning the prisoners to work, had already rung; 
and in a few moments they began to make their appear- 
ance. They came in irregular numbers, sometimes two 
or three together, and sometimes a single one alone ; but, 
whenever one or more were about to cross the yard to 
the smithy, the soldiers were ordered to present, in readi- 
ness to fire. The prisoners were heavily ironed, and 
secured both by handcuffs and fetters ; and, being there- 
fore unable to walk, could only make their way by a 

' Richard H. Phelps, History of Newgate, pp. 88, 90. 
^Travels through the Northern Parts of the United States," 
1807-1808, I: 210-216. 



635] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 223 

sort of jump or hop. On entering the smithy, some went 
to the sides of the forges, where collars, dependent by 
iron chains from the roofs, were fastened round their 
necks, and others were chained in pairs to wheelbarrows.^^ 
. . . This establishment, as I have said, is designed to 
be, from all its arrangements, an object of terror, and 
everything is accordingly contrived to make the life en- 
dured in it as burdensome and miserable as possible." 

"The cells are near the well, but at different depths 
beneath the surface, none perhaps exceeding sixty feet. 
They are small, rugged, and accommodated only with 
wooden berths, and some straw. The straw was wet, 
and there was much humidity in every part of this 
obscure region; but I was assured I ought to attribute 
this only to the remarkable wetness of the season; that 
the cells were in general dry, and that they were not 
found unfavorable to the health of the prisoners. "^^ 

"Into these cells the prisoners are dismissed at four 
o'clock in the afternoon, every day without exception, 
and at all seasons of the year. They descend in their 
fetters and handcuffs ; and at four o'clock in the morning 
they ascend the iron ladder, climbing it as well as they 
can, by the aid of their fettered limbs. ..." 

"Going again into the workshop or smithy I found the 
attendants of the prison delivering pickled pork for the 
dinner of the prisoners. Pieces were given separately to 
the parties at each forge. They were thrown upon the 
floor and left to be washed and boiled in the water used 
for cooling the iron wrought at the forges. Meat had 
been distributed in like manner for breakfast." 

"... Prisoners in this gaol are treated precisely 
as tigers are treated in a menagerie ; and if the minds of 
men are influenced by education, then the education of a 
tiger may be expected to make a tiger of the man. From 
all persons in and about the gaol, you hear of nothing 
but the ferocious disposition of the prisoners, and of the 

" See, also, Richard H. Phelps, Hist, of Newgate, pp. 86, 87; Noah 
A. Phelps, Hist, of Simshury, Granby, and Canton, pp. 127, 128. 

" See, also, Richard H. Phelps, Hist, of Newgate, pp. 83, 84 ; Noah 
A. Phelps, Hist, of Simsbury, Granby, and Canton, p. 132. 



2 24 American Economic Association [636 

continual fear in which they keep their keepers. Now, 
nothing ought less to excite our surprise than this. 
Everything that human art can do, is in this instance 
done, to brutify and inflame the victim; and what more 
natural, than that this being done, he should in his own 
turn become an object of alarm, to those by whom he is 
brutified and inflamed ?"^^ 

Industries Carried on at the State Prison. — In 1827 
the prisoners were removed from Newgate to the new 
prison at Wethersfield.^^ There were eighty-one prison- 
ers brought from Newgate ;^^ and the industries that had 
been carried on there were transferred to the new prison 
and continued on public account. ^^ These industries were 
nail-making, smith work, cooperage, wagon making, and 
shoe making. The directors of the prison soon began 
hiring the labor of convicts to contractors, and the public 
account system was gradually replaced by the contract 
system. After about 1844 the State employed on its own 
account only those prisoners who could not be contracted 
or who were unfit for contract work.^^ Since 1856, with 
the exception of a few convicts employed during eight 
different years, to prevent their remaining idle, the State 
has carried on no industries on its own account (see 
table, pp. 227-233). One reason why the State gave up 
manufacture on its own account was the difficulty expe- 
rienced in finding sale for the products. ^'^ This was the 
direct cause for abandoning the industries brought from 

" See, also, Noah A. Phelps, Hist, of Simsbury, Granby, and Can- 
ton, p. 134; Richard H. Phelps, Hist, of Newgate, p. 89. 

""When the prisoners arrived from Newgate, irons were found 
upon many of them, which they had constantly worn." — Report 
Directors Conn. State Prison, 1828, p. 5. 

" Noah A. Phelps, Hist, of Simsbury, Granby, and Canton, p. 129. 
Richard H. Phelps in his Hist, of Newgate, p. 130, gives 127 as the 
number removed to Wethersfield. 

"Report of Legislative Investigating Committee on Conn. State 
Prison, 1842, p. 9. 

^^ Report Directors Conn. State Prison, 1876. . 



637 J Labor Legislation of Connecticut 225 

Newgate and employing the convicts at making chair 
seats.^^ Another important reason for giving up the 
public account system was that the contract system had 
proven to be more profitable. For the seventeen years 
next preceding its abolishment $125,081.06 was drawn 
from the State treasury to support the Newgate prison. 
The profits of the new prison for the same length of time 
were $93,146.48.^^ 

In 1828 there were five industries carried on in the 
prison, in 1836 there were eight, in 1842 ten, in 1846 
five, in 1856 nine, in 1863 three, from 1879 ^o 1895 one, 
and from 1895 to the present there have been two. (See 
table, pp. 227-233). A varied assortment of things have 
been manufactured during this time, but many of them 
only for short periods. A few, however, were manufac- 
tured for a long term of years, as shoes, rules, chairs, 
and chair seat frames. Until 1857 ^^^ custom was to 
have many industries and a small number of men in each 
industry. Before this time the average number of men 
to an industry was less than twenty-five and the largest 
number in any industry had not exceeded fifty. Since 
1857 the number of industries has decreased rapidly, and 
the number of men in each industry has increased as 
rapidly. In 1880 the manufacture of boots and shoes 
was the only industry, and it employed two hundred men. 
This number had risen to 248 before the manufacture of 
shirts was begun in 1895. At present (1905) 245 men 
are employed in the shoe shops and no in the shirt 
factory. The decline in the number of industries has 
been due largely to the complaint that the industries car- 
ried on in the prison were injurious to similar industries 
outside the prison, or to free laborers. It has been due 
partly to contractors abandoning their contracts. 

^'Ihid., 1830, p. 5. 
''Ihid., 1844, p. 7. 



226 American Economic Association [638 

In order to discuss intelligently convict labor in its 
relation to the reformation of the prisoner, and in its 
relation to competition with free labor and with indus- 
tries carried on outside the prison, it is necessary that 
we know what and how many industries were carried on 
in the State prison at the time of which we speak, how 
many men were employed in each, and under what sys- 
tem. The writer, learning that in Connecticut there was 
a great lack of information on these points on the part 
of those most interested in the question of convict labor, 
and even on the part of the prison officials themselves, 
and finding that this information was not easily accessi- 
ble, determined to construct a table which would give 
this information for each year since the establishment 
of the prisof! at Wethersfield in 1827. In constructing 
the table the reports of the directors of the prison and 
the reports of special legislative investigating committees 
on prison matters were relied on mainly for data. A 
number of the early reports of the directors are missing,^^ 
and the few found for the years before 1836 give little 
information on these points. The information for these 
years was gleaned from the report of a legislative inves- 
tigating committee appointed in 1841. This report does 
not give the number of men in each industry each year. 
The reports of the directors and those of the legislative 
investigating committees differ in some of their state- 
ments. The table indicates the industries carried on and 
the men employed in each at the time of closing the 
report for each year, hence a few industries that were 
carried on for only a few months between reports do not 
appear in the table. The table, too, shows only the num- 
ber employed producing for the market. For all these 
reasons the table must be offered with this apology and 
explanation. It is approximately correct. 

"From the Yale University library, from the Comiecticut State 
library, and from the State Prison. 



to 
























H 


z w 






















b 


O H 






















O 


5 ^ 






















&I 


g ^ 


r^ 


o 




CO 




^ 




CO 




l-< in 00 






M 


w 




o 




(N 








X^ 00 vO 


H 


Ji. o 


q^ 


N 




o 




00 




r^ 




M ON 


U 


O r- 






















2 




CO 




in 




r^ 




oo" 




cT CO in 


w 
























3 


a 






















o 


§ 






















1 


XT) 


o 




O 




O 




in 




in ^ <i 




























rt G 
















































T*- 


'^t 




XT) 




^ 




CO 




CO N N 




^ TJ 
























o a 






















w 


hi 












































H 






• - *J 


G i 


4_> 


c 


Uj -u 


c 


.(_, 


r; 


1| 1 






i> 


bo V 

O 'c5 
O ^ 
o o 


as. 

So 


c3 


o 




O 

bjo 

S 


re 


1 


O 

z 


■s-s 


1 


bJb .- 

G O 

■> ? 


're 
o 

in 


bh 

G 


8-§ 

o 


bi 
G 

'E 


're 
to •- 


b£ 
'> 


1^ -5 


< 

c 




2 "^ 


bjo •- C 


S- 5^ 


o 


re „ 




re 


1 ir» 


re 


^ in 


re 


re in r3 in 


5^ 


xn 

M 






u-i in 


y 


O CO 




a. o _i> o 

O CO73 CO 




III 


^ G 


■5 be 


o 


l^ 


O 


8« 

.- C 


o 






m 




S2 


M re 
re 


s 


Mi 




bc-z> 
c re 

^ 55 


CO 

s 


•^1 i-sl s 

^ ^ a^ So a 




o 


M 

^ 


o S ^ 


re c3 


£ 


re 
re 


re 


S-3 


2 


re rt re cs 

a.i:^ a i-ii 




CQ r" 




J3 




^ 




J= 




^ ^ 








o 




o 




O 




(J u 




"rt c 
























u 
























M 


N w 




Cl 




M 






M 


'^ rt 




-M T3 
























O rt 






















< 


^H 






















<L> 
















s 






f< 


^ 
















M 




w .- 3 ^ 


'r- 
















T3 




7D b/! J3 b/) 


Z 


-a 
















G 




G G _ G 


o 


c 








C/3 




1 




re 




re '^3 b/)'*3 




C3 

^1 




b/) 




v2 










w to ^ ■" M 


2 


§1 




_G 




-a 

c 




-a 

G 




-g 




JD 


rt Ci- 




re 




re 




re 




~ 




1 ^"1 5 S" 








^ 




^ 




Vi 




<u 






g 


're 
y 




> 




13 




s 

re 


■73 




en 


o 




V5 




to 




x; 


« 




13 


















re 


.^rt rt _ 




O 


CA 


w w 




c/T 




tfl 




tn 




to-2 ^ OT 




o 


<u 










(U 




m 


O' 


u ex u u Cli 




O 


o 


o o 




o 




o 




o 




50 




^ 


^ — 




jz 




J3 




^ 




^ J3 






(0 


Ui CO 




■ji 




w 




CO 




CO CO 






oo 


O O 




^ 




M 




CO 




Tj- in 




N 


Cl CO 




en 




cn 




CO 




CO CO 




oo 


CO CO 




CO 




CO 




CO 




00 CO 






l-l 


M )-< 




-H 




l-l 




l-l 




M M 





t/j 


1 


















^ ^ w 


















E o p 


















o ^ < 


















d ai fr< 


















s S "« 


IT) 


CO 




ii-> 




6 M 






o 


tr, 








O M 






H fe p 


in 


■^ 




o_ 




O "^ 






W o H 


o" 


t-^ 








CO "^ 






w 




•-1 


eg 














iS 


C 


°r^ 


CI 




in 




r^ r^ 






1) 


o 


CO 




o 




vn T 




J 


o 


§ 




M 




t-l 




M k-l 




a 


H 




















CO 


CO 




r> 




vO t-> 






i-i 


w> 
















a 


o 


H 


















"rt C 


CO 


CO 




r-- 




C^ w 




1 




4^ <u 


T^ 


ID 




o 




vO CO 




^" 




















r— "5 
















o 




i2^ 


w 


« 




M 




C« Tt 




O! 




O rt 
















1— « 


i 


















Ph 




CO 


en 




Vi 




tn (U 








s 


B 

c3 




a 




6^ be 




H 


O 


•o 


)-i 


^ 




4j 






C/2 


t3 






2 

1 




rt 

en 










O 

8 


2 o 






'5 

On 




U CO bfl « 




H 
U 
W 


< 
2 














o 


1 


o 


■* 




N 




.^ ^ c " 






Tt- 


be 




tuO 




b« bJo'S -7^ 










.5 




.5 




•S « o 8 

rt rt 5 o 


1 


o 




2^ 


•i: M 




5? 
.i: CO 








dJ 


2 












4> 






o 


U 




CJ 




o y 


1 




"rt C 


o 


■* 




oo 




CO O 


1— I 




2 s 




(N 




ON 




CO vO 


V 




hS 


M 


■^ 










1 


o 


















^ 


i3^ 


o 


vO 




m 




•* CO 


1^ 


Q 




O rt 














s 

g 


P< 
< 


s 


c 


^ i « M ^ 

SJ-n S t; Ji 




Si 


h-r M 


^ 

jj 


N-o « c^ 


i 

^ 


■< 


o pq o ti o 


o 


V) tf) 


o 


en c3 O en 




P4 


s 


w 7. a-3 m 




tn 


Soo- 


en 


1 o "^ ^ 


o 


o 


g 


t3 


i^l^^ 


2' 




52 


^ 

vSe 


C/2 


o 


C 


OJ tn G LT <U 

Ills! 

i n 10 
-SI "- 


•gss. 

ill 


<u 


(U 


Ci,cn <u a, 


H 

Pi 

H 

Q 
1— 1 


Q 


s 

1/) 


-^"^ ?1 « M 

M CO V 

O CJ C y 

•- cn ™ rt 

So." S- 


s 

1 

o 
oo" 

CI 

en 

(U 


M .. g en 

So" S^ 

en " -- en rt 
0) tn »n dj *j 

Cu ►- w (u (O. en 


B 
v2i 

C 

o 






o 






o 




o 


O 


a 






xi ^ 




^ 




^ 


^ 










W5 Ui 




t« 




en 


en 


S 


























»- 














Q 






rt 


O r> 




CO 




o> 


O 








>i 


CO en 




tn 




^ 


-f 


s 






CO QO 




oo 




a* 


e» 





o 


O h 


CO O O ot^Nt^OO 
N O O comO'^"^w 

co" co" o" o'o" t-^ CO m" ci 


3 

o 

1 

O 




"^ o Tt vo cocor^cn 
r^ CO t->. \r> vnc^Mcn 

M M M 1-1 MMMM 


1 


c:^ o O CO iDinoo 


O 
H 


13 c 


00 CO vo CO eoc<"coco 




%t'u^ "^ ^ MMNM 


3 

11 

II 

en 

o 


chair seating 47; chair seat frames 
12; knotting and splitting cane 
22; nails 3 

chair seating 50; chair seat frames 
12; knotting and splitting cane 
20 ; palm leaf hats 5 ; cigars 2 

chair seating 23; chair seat frames 
10; knotting and splitting cane 
9; palm leaf hats 8; nails 12 

chair seating 17; chair seat frames 
4; knotting and splitting cane 
10 

chair seats 39 

chair seats 32 

chair seats 29; binding boots (fe- 
males) 2 

chair seats 33; binding boots (fe- 
males) 4 


8 


1 o 

^s" 


r^ N "-> -^^OvOvO 

en M <N MC>oa> 




\r» vn in in 'g-'^^T^ 


-o 
c 

•si- 

tn 

1 

o 


shoes 25; carriage springs 16; rules 
12; chairs 25; varnishing and 
finishing chairs 12 

shoes 25; table cutlery 25; rules 12 
chairs 25; varnishing and fin- 
ishing chairs 10 

shoes 25; table cutlery 50; rules 12 
chairs 18; varnishing and fin- 
ishing chairs 7 

shoes 25; table cutlery 50; rules 15 
chairs 25; varnishing and fin- 
ishing chairs 10 

shoes 23; table cutlery 42; rules 

1 5 ; chairs 34 
shoes 21; table cutlery 33; rules 

1 1 ; chairs 3 1 
shoes 18; table cutlery 32; rules 

13; chairs 33 
shoes 20; table cutlery 29; rules 

14; chairs 33 






M w CO ^ invo r^ CO ON 

rj- T^ 'I- •^ "*TtTl-Tf.^ 
00 00 OO CO COCO 00 CO CO 
M M M M MMMMM 



Cll . 

s§ 

3 OJ s 

2 o S 

"ti jO **-< 
0) rt o 

^ S a 

M <y - 

>^'C ^ 

3 b^bjO 
J- u ^ 

-^ ,« O 

^ ^ J3 

CO ^ ^ 





V} 
















H 


'Z piq 














fe 


S ^ 














O 


^ < 










S 






g^ 


N a* 


XT) 





ei 


m' Tt CO* 




en vo 


r^ 


d 


CO 


in Tt N 




H 


fe p 


CO o 


r^ 





M 


in t^ 




M 
Z 


O H 


M M 


en 


^"^ 


■^ 


m" ci N 




^ 
















3 


c 


cn o 


vO 


in 


Tt 


Ov (N 




c 


xn en 


'^ 


in 





CO ^0 




o 








M 


M 


M MM 


^ 


C-H 


s 












c; 


w 












1 


'S 




o m 


in 





CO 


0^ O" m 




rt 


rt 
















i: 












g 


6 


H 












X_.' 




H a 


o o 


a> 


CO 


t-« 


N ^ 


1 




+j m 


en en 


en 


en 


M 


M M 


I 




e2s 












o 


^ t« 












OQ 




iS-^ 


«N M 


'-' 


H 


M 


M M 


t-H 




O cj 












P-l 


» 














N 




0) 


al) 










H 


H 


<^ 










(/2 


O 


Id 

G 


en 

8 










H 


rt 


be 










^ 


D 


TJ -O 


c 










U 


8 

u 
o 


1^ 


■'S 










I— 1 
H 
O 






0^ 


CO 


1> 


d rt 


^ 




en en 
en ^_^ en 


en 


en 


H 


M M 


;^ 




en 


en 


tn 


i2 J2 


o 




rt « rt 


e« 


rt 


rt 


rt rt 




Cfl 


OJ ^ <u 


(U 


v 


« 


QJ V 


u 




TJ 


en rt en 


en 


en 


en 


en en 






O 


.fc a .a 


^, 


u 


Ui 


vi ;-< 


w 




o 

O 












a a 


cS 


ti 


rt 


ctf rt 






^ ^ 


X! 


JS 


^ 


^ ^ 






o o 





u 





u 






^ 












!z; 




15 fi 


Tt en 


t^ 


t^ 


r^ 


'^ in (N 




■)=! <u 


M O 





M 


"* 


r- en 






hS 




M 




M 


M MM 


;zi 














o 


en 
3-S 


•* ''t 


'* 


xr> 


1> 


CO CO in 


Q 




O rt 












M 














t— I 
















P^ 


^ 


53 


J J 


s ^ 


2 i 


xn XT) VI '^ 
en en^ij c< 


V x'^ <i> ^ 


<1 


<! 


(U 


'B 3 


3 3 


rt ^ 


.S|l.§ 

C« rt "5 OJ 


Cu .ti ^ a x: 




1 


Vh !-< 


iH ;-r 


; chairs 46; school app 
1 20; planes 35 
4; cooperage 17, smi 


school apparatus 14; coo 

age 15; planes 25 

es 2; carpentry 20; sm 

work 17; rules 15; chairs 

school apparatus 19; coo 

age 15; planes 19 

ith's work 17; rules 20; sc 

apparatus 19; burnishing 

verware 37; planes 69 


H 

1— 1 

H 

Q 
^2; 


o 


Td 


en en 


en M 


•^ -S xi 


u 

s 


en 


24; table cutlery 
; chairs 39 
15; table cutlery 
; chairs 40 


17; table cutlery 

; chairs 43 

6; table cutlery 


work 16; rules 20; 
school apparatus 20; 
es 3; carpentry 18 
work 15; rules 17; 




t/j CO (/J 


tn ^ w 


S en 






o 


flj M <u M 


§-S 






O 











1 1 






^ rC 


xi ^ 


XI 


Xi 








en tn 


en en 


en 


tn 


en en 






u 


















M 


W en 


rt 


tn 


t^ 






u-> vo 


xn XT) 


u-i 


in 


in in 






CO 00 


30 CO 


CO 


CO 


CO CO 








>-" M 


I-I l-l 


M 


H 


M M 



1/5 

^ Z w 

ta O H 

O ^ < 

Pi ftj H 

fe p, to 

H fc O 






rtO XT) 



O M 

t^ o 



f2s 



O rt 



T3 -n 

2 o 
^t 

:^ 

M 

•73 
O 
O 

O 












^-a-rt-^ 



c s 

rt tfl t« ,— ^ 

t/) .i3 cfl rt <U as i2i 



m 



§ ^ g a oj G (u 
4- .5 <+i "^ <u •-' cj 
— ■ _^ ^—^^ m ^ tn 



fSa 



O rt 

Hi 



^ a 



4J CO 

-3 CO 

u 

.» OJ 
CO ^ 

*-> )- 

4) 

'i-l 

CO ._ 

<u « 
o 

Vi 



St 

O C *g CO 






.5 

IS 



M <U 



en 

G CO C ^ 
^ to ^^ t« ci^" 

o o 

to en 



- rt •- 
-r; CO 



o 



G 
cj 

o 



> <u 
o 



CO ^ 'w 
co^ 
en *w b/) 

^1 G 

C^ 'c G 

co^^ 

' C CO 
W en tn 
> 4J <u 
O O 

,G ^ 



CO ^ 
CO CO 



■G r2 1^ 



(D ^ D 

<L) aj <" 

XI _> J2 

en "5 en 

G C 3 

-3 ^ 

. - en -- 

O -G O 

O £ oo 



O 



3" "5 S tn 



*en 

a^.S 
^-G 

•55 ^ 

J3 <L) > 

o 

en 



o 
ex 

w 


^ 2 

O H 


M r^ IT) o M M M r^co w 
CO o O^ w in M r~>co^ CO O 
cT in cf hT m cT cf cT h' en 


■ ^ 


g 


O '* i^ CO 0-. incninM'* 
in CO o '^ en •^ t^co O c< 

M M M M MMMMMW 




CO CO CO CO COCO'^COCON 


fa 
o 

H 

o 
o 


II 


^OOm 


"1 


W M W M 


a 

II 

1 


O o< M in 

52 S2 2 52 
'o G o D 


<; 

H 

o 
u 

j 




O '^ »^ CO oin'*inMC> 
m CO O ^ CO ■^vO O t^ M 

M M M M MMMMMW 




CO CO CO CO COCOCOWWM 




shoes 82; rules 39; burnishing sil- 
verware 2g 

shoes 99; rules 52; burnishing sil- 
verware 33 

shoes 86; rules 53; burnishing sil- 
verware 26 

shoes 80; rules 41; burnishing sil- 
verware 27 

shoes 85; wire goods 24; rules 30 

shoes 93; wire goods 21; rules 31 

shoes 114; wire goods 20; rules 30 

shoes 140; rules 25 

shoes 124; slippers 47 

shoes 219 




u 

^ 


M c^ co^inOvCt^ 
r^ r^ r^ r^r-.r-^r^r-'t^ 

CO 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 

M M M M MMMMMM 



645] 



Labor Legislation of Connecticut 



233 



INDUSTRIES CARRIED ON IN THE CONNECTICUT STATE 
PRISON— (Concluded) 





Under Contract 


Under Piece- Price 


Grand Totals 














NET LOSS OF 




Goods Manufac- 


Goods Manufac- 






PRISC'N TO 


Year 


tured and Men 
Employed 


tured and Men 
Employed 


Trades 


Men 


STATE 


1878 


shoes 237 




I 


237 


$1,417. 


1879 


shoes 200 




I 


200 


692. (gain) 


18S0 


shoes 190 




I 


100 


3.048. 


1881 


shoes 180 




I 


180 


5,259- 


1S82 


shoes 168 




I 


168 


7,073. 


1883 


shoes 206 




I 


206 


3,403- 


1884 


shoes ig5 




r 


195 


3,108. 


1885 


shoes 218 




I 


218 


5,792. 


1886 


shoes 197 




I 


197 


2,401. 


1887 


shoes 








4,184. 


18S8 


shoes 221 




I 


221 


7,567. 


18S9 


shoes 










1890 


shoes 211 




I 


211 


23,106." 


1891 


shoes 










l8g2 


shoes 239 




I 


239 


14,963." 


1893 


shoes 










1894 


shoes 248 




I 


248 


27,944." 


1S95 


shoes 235 


shirts 47 


2 


282 


30,830. 


1896 


shoes 231 


shirts 50 


2 


281 


18,036. 


1897 


shoes 236 


shirts 70 


2 


306 


49,780. 


1898 


shoes 240 


shirts 92 


2 


332 


30,961. 


1899 


shoes 260 


shirts 89 


2 


349 




1900 


shoes 241 


shirts 84 


2 


326 


21,020. 


I90I 


shoes 238 


shirts 85 


2 


323 


36,654. 


1902 


shoes 234 


shirts 104 


2 


338 


21,183. 


1903 


shoes 253 


shirts 108 


2 


361 


30,251. 


1904 


shoes 243 


shirts 98 


2 


341 


23.943. 


1905 


shoes 245 


shirts no 


2 


355 


24,913. 



" This includes preceding year also. 

The Contract System. — While in the early history of 
the Connecticut State prison the industries were carried 
on under the public account system, and while in recent 
years a large number of the convicts have been employed 
on the piece-price plan, the general policy of Connecticut 
has been to employ her prisoners under the contract sys- 
tem (see table, pp. 227-233). Is this the proper system 
for attaining the objects sought by imprisonment ? These 
objects should be (i) to protect society, (2) to reform 



234 American Economic Association [646 

the criminal, (3) to punish crime, and (4) to force the 
criminal, where he has not done so, to earn his own 
living and cease being a burden on society. The safety 
of society should be first considered and next the reform- 
ation of the prisoner. The profitable application of the 
convict's labor should always be held subsidiary to his 
reformation ; and, hence, that form of prison labor should 
be adopted which will best work the reformation of the 
prisoner. Is this the contract system? 

It is often claimed against the contract system of 
prison labor, that the presence of the contractor in the 
prison is a foreign and not desirable influence; that his 
interest is almost of necessity in antagonism with the 
higher interests of prison discipline and reform ; that his 
only care is to get as much work out of the men as he 
can for the price paid ; and that these interests of the con- 
tractor must somewhat interfere with the proper govern- 
ment of the prison. It is said, also, that the contract 
system takes the convict from under the supervision and 
control of the prison officials ; that it affords them oppor- 
tunity to shirk their responsibility for the care, discipline, 
punishment, and reformation of the criminal ; and that it 
is a bar to any progressive, scientific treatment of the 
criminal classes. It is further urged that the contract 
system is opposed to that diversity of industries which 
will allow a distribution of labor, based upon the various 
capacities and abilities of the prisoners. 

Has the contract system in Connecticut been open to 
these objections? A distinguished French commission 
which visited the Wethersfield prison about 1830, in their 
report to the French government, assigned to it the first 
place among American prisons; and a New York com- 
mission, in 1844, after inspecting various prisons of the 
country, referred to it as "the pattern prison" of the 
Auburn plan, where silence, order and industry were 



647] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 235 

completely exemplified, and where "the discipline of the 
convicts would satisfy the most rigid tactician."^^ A 
Connecticut commission in 1842 recommended the substi- 
tution of the piece-price system of labor for the contract 
system. A similar commission in 1872 failed to discover 
any abuses in the contract system at Wethersfield,^^ and 
another in 1880 found no "ground for the complaints 
made against the Connecticut State Prison or the Con- 
tract System. "^^ Yet these same reports recognize that 
the contractor has not the same interest in the reforma- 
tion of the convict that officers of the State should have. 
The overseers of the labor of the convicts are State 
officers, and they have full authority over the discipline 
of the prisoners in the work rooms; but until after 1872 
these overseers were dependent for their pay on the 
contractors. The investigation commission of 1842 re- 
ported a case of an overseer being interested in the con- 
tract, and the report of the commission of 1880 (p. 8) 
says: 

"Under former administrations it was the custom to 
allow contractors to use inducements of money or gifts 
to make the prisoners do a greater amount of work, and 
the abominable practice prevailed of contractors feeing 
both officers and convicts. This practice is utterly sub- 
versive of discipline, puts those who pay and those who 
receive the bribe in the power of each other, and makes 
the contractor the master of the prison." 

Such abuses seem to have been rare. Would they not 
have been as frequent under any system of State account ? 
The overseers would have remained about the same, and 
the past experience of the prison shows that under such a 
system the warden would have been prompted by the 



"Report of Commissioners on State Prison Matters, to General 
Assembly of Conn., 1872, p. 4. 

^Report of Special Commission on Contract Convict Labor, 1880, 
p. 41. 



236 American Economic Association [648 

same desire to make the industry pay as is the contractor 
under the contract system, and that probably he would 
have worked the prisoners with as little thought of their 
reformation. 

Under the contract system the warden is not at full 
liberty to regulate the number and kinds of industries 
according to the abilities of the prisoners, or to distribute 
the prisoners among the different industries according 
to their abilities and capacities. Usually he must make 
what contracts he can in order to keep all the men em- 
ployed. The results in Connecticut have been that before 
1857 there were too many industries in proportion to the 
number of prisoners. Many of the contracts were short 
lived (see table, pp. 227-233) and the men were contin- 
ually shifted from one trade to another, not remaining in 
any one long enough to learn it.^^ Often the industries 
were chosen without regard to their suitability. In the 
"forties'* the policy was to manufacture only those arti- 
cles commonly imported into the United States, and 
which would not come into direct competition with the 
industries of the State. ^^ This policy, never closely fol- 
lowed, was directly opposed to the present prevalent idea 
that the prisoner should be taught in prison a trade he 
can pursue on leaving the prison. Since 1875 the indus- 
tries have been too few. With only one or two trades 
it is impossible to find suitable employment for all classes 
of prisoners, and it is doubly difficult for the men to 
secure employment at their trade on leaving the prison,, 
particularly if, as in Connecticut, the one or two indus- 
tries of the prison are not carried on extensively in the 
State. 

Competition with Convict Labor. — In Connecticut, as 
elsewhere, convict labor has been objected to most seri- 

^^ Report of Committee on Connecticut State Prison, 1842, pp. 
33, 34. 



649] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 237 

ously because of its alleged injurious competition with 
free labor. Much of the discussion of this question has 
been highly illogical, and many erroneous opinions still 
exist in regard to the proper regulation of the labor of 
convicts. 

It is the right and duty of every able-bodied man to 
support himself by his own labor. In this struggle for 
existence every man comes into competition with every 
other man; but this competition is seldom injurious, and 
it is never wrong, so long as it is unrestricted competition 
between equals. In this antagonistic co-operation it is 
for the welfare of society and the individual that each 
employ his productive powers in the manner that will 
secure the greatest product. 

If we apply these self-evident principles, and other 
similar ones, to the convict and his labor, we may say : 

1. Every convict should support himself by his own 
labor. 

2. This labor should be employed in the most pro- 
ductive manner. 

3. Each convict as a free man competed, or should 
have competed, with every other laboring man, and the 
fact that he is now a prisoner is no reason why this com- 
petition should cease. 

4. Such competition will not wrongly injure free labor 
so long as it is freely competitive, is not subsidized, and 
is not restricted to certain trades. 

5. So far as it is possible to prevent it, the employment 
of convict labor should not change the relative positions 
of the industries outside the prison before its employment. 

6. The extent to which the sudden employment . of x 
convicts in any industry may result in real competition or 
injury to free labor in that industry depends not only 
upon the proportion x is of the total number of free 
laborers in that industry in the State, the United States, 



238 American Economic Association [650 

and abroad, but also upon the extent of the market for 
the products — whether it be local, state, or international 
in extent. 

7. The more diversified the industries carried on in 
the prison and the more they are limited to large indus- 
tries with broad markets and many workers the less the 
danger of injurious competition. 

8. It is the sudden shifting of convict labor from one 
trade to another that is most harmful to free labor in 
competing industries. If the prison trades, even though 
injuriously competitive at first, are made stable and per- 
manent, labor outside the prison will adjust itself to the 
new conditions and, when once adjusted, will no longer 
feel injurious effects from the competition. 

9. Convict labor is least hurtful when its products are 
left to go where they are most wanted, scattered abroad ; 
and it is most hurtful when the sale and consumption of 
the products are restricted to localities or classes of con- 
sumers.^^ 

Since the establishment of the State prison at Wethers- 
field there have been numerous complaints that free labor 
and industries were being injured by competition with 
the labor and industries of the prison. Several legisla- 
tive committees have investigated these complaints and, 
usually, have found that they had little or no foundation 
in fact. However, some cases of real injury were re- 
ported. The commission of 1842 found that three of 
the ten industries carried on in the prison at that time 
were injurious in their effects on competition with free 
labor. These were the manufacture of chairs, carriage 
springs, and carpenter's rules. The market for carriage 
springs and rules was small, and for the former it was 
local. The product of the sixteen convicts employed in 



U. S. Industrial Commission Report, 1900, Vol. Ill, p. 126. 



651] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 239 

making carriage springs, and of the twelve employed in 
making rules, in 1841, might have had an appreciable 
effect on this market. In the same year one hundred and 
nineteen of the one hundred and seventy-four convicts 
{6^ per cent.) producing for the market were employed 
on the different parts of chair manufacture. This was a 
very large proportion and might easily have injured the 
local industry, particularly as the market at that time was 
limited because of the lack of means of transportation, 
and because of the custom of each neighborhood supply- 
ing its own needs. The chair industry was continued, 
however, until 1857, and the manufacture of rules until 
1877. Before 1857 the large number of industries, an 
average of six, and the few men to an industry, an aver- 
age of less than twenty-five, rendered serious injury from 
their competition impossible. What injury there was 
probably came more from the frequent changes of indus- 
tries and from the custom of shifting the men from one 
industry to another, than from other causes. ^^ 

At this time, 1842, there was opposition to the teach- 
ing of trades to convicts and to their use of labor-saving 
machinery. Even the legislative committee said: 

"If the steam engine was not already in use at the 
prison the Committee could not recommend its introduc- 
tion. . . . The Committee would prefer employments 
carried on by hand labor, instead of those requiring ma- 
chinery."^^ 

In 1879 the legislature was petitioned to abolish the 
contract system of convict labor in the State prison. It 
was alleged that the competition with contract convict 
labor and its products was having a disastrous effect upon 
the free labor and industries of the State. But "A Spe- 
cial Commission on Contract Convict Labor," appointed 

^See Report of Committee on Comiecticut State Prison, 1842, 
p. 2Z- 

"" Ibid., pp. 3S, 36. 



240 American Economic Association [652 

to investigate the matter, reported, in 1880, that it had 
"failed to discover any ground for the complaints made 
against the Connecticut State prison or the Contract 
System." 

Some of its conclusions were : 

"That there are no favored contractors in this state." 

"That the price paid for convict labor is not greatly 
belov^ its value." 

"That the profit of contractors as a rule is not larger 
than the profits of ordinary manufacturers. ..." 

"The claim that, except in the hat trade,^^ one man 
who desired to work has been deprived of employment, 
or that workingmen, except hatters, have had their wages 
reduced, or that any have been reduced to want or crime, 
has not been sustained by one item of proof, and it is 
not believed that any proof exists." 

"That, with the exception of the hatting trade, . . . 
the industries of this state are (not) affected by compe- 
tition with prison industries or by speculation or corrupt 
competition between prison contractors of this or any 
other state." 

"That prison-made goods do not as a rule undersell 
free manufactures. ..." 

"That there is justice in the demand for a greater 
diversity of industries in the prison. ..." 



^The complaint was against the prison made hats of the State of 
New York. None were manufactured in the Connecticut prison. 
The complainants say: 

"It is estimated that one-fourth of the whole number of people in 
the United States engaged in the manufacture of fur and wool hats 
are employed in this State, and that the value of their product will 
rather exceed that proportion." 

"The business is confined almost entirely to the towns of Danbury, 
Bethel, Norwalk and Bridgeport in Fairfield County." 

"The 725 convicts contracted for making hats (in New York) are 
just about five per cent, of the whole number . . . engaged in the 
trade in the whole country. ... It will thus be seen that we have to 
bear fully twenty-Uve times our fair share of the burden." — Report 
of Special Commission on Contract Convict Labor, 1880, pp. 103, 
104, 108. 



653] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 241 

At this time, 1879, ^h^ only industry in the prison was 
the manufacture of boots and shoes. But since this in- 
dustry had been so long and firmly established in the 
prison and since it was an industry employing large 
numbers of men all over the world, and with a world 
market for its products, and particularly since the indus- 
try was of minor importance in Connecticut,^^ the pro- 
ducts of the 237 convicts employed in it in 1879 could not 
have had a very injurious effect on the industry in Con- 
necticut. However, the fact that so many convicts were 
taught the same trade may have had an injurious effect 
on the workmen in that trade outside the prison. 

This, probably, is the only valid objection that can be 
made to the contract system in Connecticut to-day, so 
far as injurious competition with Connecticut industries 
or laborers is concerned. The same is true of the piece- 
price contract for making shirts. It is in competition 
with the released convicts and not with those in prison 
that the free workmen of Connecticut are most liable to 
suffer. 

The claim that competition with the contractor is more 
injurious than competition with the State would be is 
not well founded. The contractor is governed by the 
same instincts and interests as the manufacturer outside 
the prison. He must make a profit or close down; and 
it is to his interest to maintain prices and to get a high 
price for his goods. Every discount affects him directly. 
The State, on the other hand, would not be governed by 
any such human instincts. It has no soul, and would not 
hesitate to cut prices or to sell without a profit. Its 

^In 1880 it was estimated that there was one convict working in 
the shoe industry in the state prison to each fifteen free laborers in 
the same industry outside of the prison in Connecticut; and that 
about five and one-half per cent, of the boot and shoe product of the 
State was manufactured in the prison. — Report of Special Commis- 
sion on Contract Convict Labor, 1880, p. 8. 



242 American Economic Association [654 

capital is not so limited as is that of an individual, and it 
could continue to manufacture without profit, or even at 
a loss. The State is not limited by the things that influ- 
ence and limit the private manufacturer, while the con- 
tractor is. Competition with the contractor is competi- 
tion with an equal, competition with the State is not. 

The claim that the contractor pays much less for con- 
vict labor than its real worth and is getting rich at the 
expense of the State must be questioned also. Most 
convicts have never learned a trade. They are weaker 
physically and intellectually than free workmen. Often 
their terms of imprisonment are short, and they are dis- 
charged almost as soon as they become proficient in their 
work. Their training is expensive, and often much ma- 
terial is wasted. The quantity of the product of a convict 
laborer is estimated at from one to two-thirds that of a 
free laborer. In 1886 it was estimated by the United 
States Commissioner of Labor that 95 free workmen 
would be required to perform the amount of labor per- 
formed by the 205 convicts in the prison shoe shops of 
Connecticut that year;^^ and in 1903-4 it was estimated 
that 108 free laborers would be necessary to perform the 
labor of the 215 convicts reported as employed under 
contract at shoe making, and that 30 free laborers would 
be necessary to perform the work of the y2 convicts 
employed making shirts under the piece-price contract.^*^ 
Then, prison contracts are for short terms, usually lim- 
ited to fiYt^ years. During this time the contractor must 
keep the convicts constantly employed and pay for their 
labor, regardless of the state of trade; while his com- 
petitor outside the prison can shut down or reduce the 



^^ Second Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, 1886, 
p. 174- 

^^ Twentieth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, 1905, 
pp. 234, 235. 



655] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 243 

number of his hands in a dull season. Often the preju- 
dice against convict-made goods forces the contractor to 
sell them at a low price. 

In Connecticut the contracts are let to the highest re- 
sponsible bidder. It would seem that if the labor of the 
convicts is so profitable, there would be many bidders; 
but, as a matter of fact, the warden often has had to 
search for contractors who would employ the convicts. 
A further proof that the employment of convict labor is 
not highly profitable is the fact that so many prison con- 
tractors fail. The report of the Special Commission on 
Contract Convict Labor (1880, p. 7), in speaking of the 
changes in industries and contractors in the prison be- 
tween 1827 and 1880, says: 

"All of the above industries (21 in number) have been 
abandoned but one, all of the above contractors (15 in 
number) are out of the prison but three, and in every 
instance the contract has been abandoned voluntarily, and 
not because the State desired it ; and the contractors have 
failed, or being too rich to suffer beyond recovery from 
an ordinary loss, and too shrewd to continue an unprofit- 
able business, have given up their contracts, because their 
profit was so small they could not compete with free 
labor. Some of them are still in business, employing 
free labor." 

In a number of other cases the warden had to reduce 
the contract price to prevent the contractors giving up 
their contracts. 

In Connecticut there has been, on the whole, little cause 
for complaint against the contract system because of its 
injurious effects on competition. Where injury has re- 
sulted under this system more often it has been due to 
the injudicious selection of industries, or to the frequent 
shifting of convicts from one industry to another, than to 
anything inherent in the system itself. These mistakes 
could, and probably would, have occurred under another 



244 American Economic Association [656 

system. Before 1878 the system lacked stability, and in 
this way possibly led to injurious competition by the fre- 
quent introduction and withdrawal of trades, and by the 
consequent shifting of the convicts from one trade to 
another. This is always a danger under the contract 
system and is probably its weakest point so far as com- 
petition is concerned. The present industries, however, 
are stable and the number of men employed in each varies 
little. 

The Financial Success of the Contract System. — In 
general the financial success of the contract system de- 
pends on the ability of the State to contract the labor of 
its convicts at a fair price and regularly. If this is done 
the system, financially considered, is the surest of any 
except the lease system. It throws upon the contractor 
all risks in buying the stock and selling the product, and 
in making the collections. It requires little State capital 
and little labor and responsibility on the part of the 
warden. It gives a steady, sure, and definite income. 
The State is paid whether the convicts are worked or 
not. Bidding for contracts insures that the State will 
receive approximately what the labor is worth. How- 
ever, the system sometimes lacks stability; and in times 
of trade depression the State is often forced to reduce 
the contract price in order to hold the contractors. 

In Connecticut the contract system, on the whole, has 
been successful financially. From the time of its removal 
to Wethersfield in 1827, to 1876, with the exception of 
two years, the prison was run at an annual net gain to 
the State (see table, pp. 227-233). The figures for this 
period, however, are open to question. Often the ac- 
counts were kept very loosely ;^'^ frequently needed im- 
provements were not made ; and the prison and prisoners 

^^ Reports Directors Conn. State Prison, 1846, 1851, 1852, 1855; 
Report Committee on State Prison, 1878, p. 6. 



65 7 J Labor Legislation of Connecticut 245 

were not so well cared for as in later years. The war- 
dens often gave more attention to making the prison pay 
than to the reformation of the prisoners. The report of 
the ''Commission on State Prison Matters" of 1872 (p. 
9) says: 

''Connecticut having once a system far in advance of 
its neighbors, and a prison which was regarded as a 
model at home and abroad, has stood still in the matter 
ever since, until it is now far behind most of the states 
in its treatment of convicts." 

Since 1876 the prison has been run at a loss to the 
State. This has not been due to a lower contract price 
paid for convict labor. In 1842 the prices ranged from 
37-J to 45 cents a day per convict. In late years the 
usual price, except in times of trade depressions, has been 
50 cents a day per convict. This loss has been due partly 
to the percentage of the prisoners employed producing 
goods for the market. For the five years, 1838- 1842, 
inclusive, 86 per cent, of the prisoners were so employed ; 
while for the five years, 1894- 1898, inclusive, only 68 per 
cent, of the prisoners were employed in this manner. ^^ 
But since, during the latter period five per cent, of the 
prisoners were employed productively outside the walls 
of the prison, raising vegetables, etc., for use in the 
prison, this number should be added to the 68 per cent. 
The cost per capita of maintaining the prison has more 
than doubled since 1840. For the six years 183 5-1 841 
the total expenses of the prison averaged only 20.85 
cents a day per convict ;^^ in 1903 the cost for mainten- 
ance was 44.92 cents a day per capita of the convicts. ^^ 
This increased expense has been due largely to improve- 

^ Computed from Reports of Directors of Connecticut State 
Prison, 1838-1842, 1894-1898. 

^ From Report of Committee on Connecticut State Prison, 1842, 
p. 26. 

" Report Directors Conn. State Prison, p. 24. 



246 American Economic Association [658 

ments made in the care and treatment of the convicts 
and to the higher prices paid for provisions. There is no 
longer any attempt to make the prison self-supporting. 
Needed improvements are made and much more atten- 
tion is given than formerly to the reformation of the 
prisoners. In no case can the excess of expenditures 
over receipts be attributed to the contract system. 

The Piece-Prite System. — In 1895 the piece-price sys- 
tem of contracting convict labor was first introduced in 
the Connecticut State prison. This is a modification of 
the contract system. The superiority claimed for it over 
the contract system is that under it the State retains full 
control and charge of the convicts while they are work- 
ing. The contractor or his men have no position in the 
prison. The officers of the State are left free to arrange 
the labor of the prisoners in the manner they deem best 
for their reformation. They, it is claimed, have not the 
same interest as the contractor in swelling the product 
by rushing the men. 

The piece-price contract of 1895 was with the New 
York Shirt Company. The company equipped the shop 
with machinery, furnished the raw materials, and did the 
cutting. The State manufactured the shirts at fifty cents 
a dozen. The contract called for from sixty to one hun- 
dred men; but in 1895 only forty-seven convicts were 
available. In 1898 ninety- two were employed on the 
contract, and in 1905 there were one hundred and ten. 
This contract was entered into by the State under assur- 
ances from the Contractors that each convict could manu- 
facture one dozen shirts a day; but for the year ending 
September 30, 1897, after the men had had two years' 
experience, their average earnings per day per capita 
were only 37.23 cents.*^ For the year ending September 



Report Directors Conn. State Prison, 1897, p. 28. 



659] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 247 

30, 1905, the average earnings per day per capita were 
slightly over 53 cents.*^ If the year 1905 v/ere not an 
exceptional one the piece-price contract at present is more 
profitable to the State than the pure labor contract for 
the convicts who work in the shoe shops. The writer, in 
visiting the two shops, noticed little difference in the 
manner in which the prisoners worked. Those in the 
shirt shop seemed to be working more rapidly than those 
in the shoe shop, but this was due, probably, to the nature 
of their work. 

For a time there was fear from competition with the 
convict-made shirts, and in 1897 one of the shirt manu- 
facturers of the State introduced a bill (H. B. 542) in 
the legislature, providing that all convict-made goods 
should be so stamped. A substitute for the bill, which 
confined the provision to convict-made shirts, was re- 
jected. This same manufacturer informs the writer that 
the prison-made shirts are sold mainly to New York 
firms and are then retailed throughout the country; and 
that he cannot say that enough of them come back to 
Connecticut to affect the local markets materially. ^^ He 
says that the labor to manufacture one dozen shirts costs 
him $1.50, while the State manufactures shirts at fifty 
cents a dozen. This difference in labor cost may be due 
to the difference in the quality of shirts manufactured. 
Those made in the prison are workmen's shirts. 

The Public Account System. — Since the public account 
system for the employment of convict labor is gradually 
gaining in favor and use in the United States, and since 
many favor its adoption in Connecticut, it may be well to 



^ Computed for the writer by the prison clerk. 

*^ For the year 1903-4, 80.4 per cent, of the boots and shoes and all 
the shirts manufactured in the State Prison were sold without the 
State. — Twentieth Annual Report U. S. Commissioner of Labor, 
i905> pp. 420, 421. 



248 American Economic Association [660 

review that system in general, and Connecticut's expe- 
rience with it in particular. 

In theory the public account system is the ideal system 
of the prison reformer, the workingman, and the manu- 
facturer. They claim that under this system whatever 
profit is made from the labor of the convicts goes to the 
State and not to enrich a subsidized contractor; that it 
gives no one manufacturer an advantage over his com- 
petitors ; that it places the foremen, officers, and convicts 
entirely under State control; and that, by placing the 
whole management of the industries and labor of the 
prison under control of the officers of the State, it offers 
the best opportunities for the reformation of the crim- 
inals. 

However beautiful the public account system may be 
in theory, in practice it has many defects. Its success 
depends very largely upon the honesty and ability of one 
man, the warden. It is difficult to secure a man as 
warden who is at once a reformer, a disciplinarian, and a 
successful manufacturer and business man, and who can 
properly combine and attend to all three duties at the 
same time. This difficulty increases with the diversity of 
industries. Under this system the stability of the indus- 
tries is liable to frequent disturbances because of the 
periodical changes in wardens and directors. Experience 
has shown that there is great danger of fraud and neglect 
on the part of the management. In seeking for an in- 
dustry which will not compete and which will have the 
best reformatory effects upon the convicts, the State is 
liable to select one for the products of which there is not 
sufficient demand. In practice the State may prove a 
dangerous competitor. It may not have chosen its indus- 
tries because there was a demand for more such indus- 
tries in the State. The State is a subsidized competitor. 
Its capital is not limited. It is not forced to make a profit, 



66 1 ] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 249 

but can continue to manufacture at a loss and when there 
is no real demand for its products. It can sell its pro- 
ducts below market price and even at a loss and still 
continue to produce and compete. In competing with the 
State the manufacturer is in no sense competing with an 
equal. 

In her experience with the public account system Con- 
necticut met most of the above difficulties. The wardens 
often proved inefficient and lacking in ability. The wel- 
fare and reformation of the prisoner often were neglected 
in the attempt to make a good financial showing. The 
accounts of the prison were juggled to show large profits 
or to cover fraud. *^ Wardens have been changed fre- 
quently and often for political reasons rather than be- 
cause of their inability, though this was too often appar- 
ent. ^^ In the seventy-nine years since the removal of the 
prison to Wethersfield there have been seventeen regu- 
larly appointed wardens, and a few temporary ones. 
Leaving the temporary wardens out of account the aver- 
age term of a warden has been but four years. The 
longest term has been eight years, and there have been 
several one and two year terms. Note the following 
changes in wardens : 

Amos Pilsbury removed and Elisha Johnson appointed, 
1845. Elisha Johnson removed and Leonard R. Welles 
appointed, 1850. Leonard R. Welles removed and Elisha 
Johnson re-appointed, 1851. Elisha Johnson removed 
(second time) and Leonard R. Welles re-appointed (sec- 
ond time), 1852. With such frequency in change of 
wardens, stability and success in prison industries car- 
ried on under public account are impossible. It is equally 



^ See Reports Directors Conn. State Prison, 1846, 1851, 1852, 1853, 

1855. 
"Report Directors Conn. State Prison, 1851, p. 15. 



250 American Economic Association [662 

impossible where each new board of directors reverses 
the acts and decisions of the preceding one. 

Connecticut has furnished us with an example of the 
State as a competitor.^^ In 1852, in accordance with 
authority given by the legislature, the directors con- 
tracted the labor of twenty convicts for the manufacture 
of common school apparatus. The pay, at forty-five 
cents a day, was to be taken in school apparatus at fifteen 
dollars a set. The State was to receive 180 sets of appar- 
atus each year, at twenty per cent, below their market 
value. In 1853 the legislature, following the recommen- 
dation of the directors of the prison, authorized the 
warden to sell the sets of apparatus to towns at -fifty per 
cent, discount, where they should buy for all the schools 
of the town, otherwise at a discount of twenty-five per 
cent, below the actual cost to the State. But even at this 
total discount of sixty per cent, below market price the 
sets of apparatus sold slowly, and, therefore, the legisla- 
ture ordered them sold at three dollars per set to any 
school districts of the State. Still, in 1859, though cir- 
culars and advertisements had been resorted to, one hun- 
dred and seventy-six sets of the apparatus remained 
unsold. Finally, to relieve the prison of the "burden," 
the directors were permitted by the General Assembly to 
dispose of the apparatus as they thought proper. In his 
report of i860 the warden states that the school apparatus 
has been disposed of and the proceeds placed in the State 
Treasury; and in his financial statement we find this 
item: 

"Paid into State Treasury amount rec'd for balance of 
School Apparatus on hand, Dec. i, 1859 [176 sets], 
$213.00." 

Where could be found a worse miscalculation in esti- 
mating the demand for a class of goods than was made 

*® Reports Directors Conn. State Prison, 1853, 1854, 1859, i860. 



663] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 251 

by the State in this case? What subsidized prison con- 
tractor ever "slashed" market prices so unmercifully and 
with so little regard to cost? In 1853 ^^^ market price 
of these sets of apparatus was $18.75 each. The State 
began selling them at $7.50 a set — a discount of sixty 
per cent, on the market price. Later they were reduced 
to $3.00, a discount of eighty per cent, on the market 
price of 1853, ^'^^ i^^ i860 the remaining sets were sold 
at $1.21 each, a discount of ninety-four per cent, on the 
market price of 185^. These sets, sold at $1.21, cost the 
State $15.00 in convict labor at forty-five cents a day 
per convict. After waiting several years for its pay the 
State received, in actual money, .0363 cents a day for the 
labor of its convicts. Yet the manufacture of this school 
apparatus continued after it was demonstrated that there 
was no active market for the product even at a discount 
of sixty per cent, below the market price. 

On the whole, the experience of Connecticut with the 
public account system is not inviting. It does not show 
that more attention would be paid to the reformation of 
the prisoners under this system than under the present 
one. It does indicate that under such a system there 
would be greater danger from corruption, incompetency, 
and injurious competition; and that the revenue to the 
State would be smaller and more uncertain. 



CHAPTER XL 

THE FACTORY ACTS. 

I. The Factory Inspection Laws. 

The Act of iSSy. — The campaign for a law creating 
a factory inspection department was begun by the 
Knights of Labor in 1885. From the discussions on the 
proposed law it seems that the prevailing idea was that 
the chief duty of the factory inspector was to be to secure 
better protection against accidents. The opposition to 
the passage of such a law was by two classes, (i) the 
manufacturers who opposed it largely because of per- 
sonal interests, and (2) those who thought there was 
little need of inspection, and that any system of inspec- 
tion by State officers would be a failure and would be 
attended with dangers to the interests and rights of the 
manufacturers. 

Most prominent of those of the latter class was Com- 
missioner Hadley, of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 
his report for 1885 (pp. 87-91) he comes out boldly in 
opposition to inspection by State officers. He says : 

"We are warranted in saying that factory accidents 
are not an evil of the very first prominence, and that the 
chance for them, although it is a grievance, is not a 
grievance of the first rank. There are a great many other 
things that produce more evil and demand speedier at- 
tention. Those who desire a system of factory inspection 
do not desire it solely as a means of preventing acci- 
dents." 

"In the first place, no system of compulsory govern- 
ment inspection is likely to be as rigid or as well enforced 

252 [664 



665] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 253 

as an inspection by private companies. There are a great 
many things which a man will submit to voluntarily, but 
which he will denounce as tyranny if he is compelled to 
submit to them by government. . . . Second, if we 
have a system of inspection which is not thoroughly effi- 
cient, we simply lessen responsibility, without doing any 
corresponding good." 

''To show how badly this works, let it be observed that 
we have a choice of two remedies for evils of this 
kind : either to prevent the employer from doing things 
wrongly, by a rigid system of inspection ; or to hold him 
responsible for the consequences, by a stricter enforce- 
ment of liability. We cannot have both." 

"Shall we commit ourselves to the policy of inspection 
or of responsibility? — bearing in mind that whichever 
we take, we reject the other. Our own opinion is in 
favor of increased responsibility and against inspection. 
We hesitate to say so, because the weight of authority 
seems to be on the other side. But when we look at the 
results from private inspection as far as it goes, and 
compare them with the slight results which government 
inspection in this country has usually produced, we can- 
not help thinking that increased responsibility enforced 
by law is likely to do more good than any system of 
government inspection." 

In the legislature of 1886 the first bill for a law cre- 
ating a factory inspection department was introduced. 
This bill (H. B. 2y) provided that the Governor should 
appoint one or more inspectors in each judicial district, 
who should inspect all buildings where machinery was 
used, twice a year. They were to be paid by the towns, 
at rates determined by the selectmen, and were to make 
reports to the selectmen. The bill also provided for 
guards to machinery, safety appliances, etc. Another bill 
introduced at this time (H. B. 135) provided for auto- 
matic doors on elevator wells, etc. The Committee on 
Labor, to which the bills were referred, reported a sub- 
stitute for the two of them. 



254 American Economic Association [666 

In the House this substitute called forth much discus- 
sion. Some of the objections to the bill brought out by 
the discussion were as follows :^ 

1. The inspection would require several men and the 
expense to the State would be great. 

2. Private machinery and secret processes are kept in 
private rooms. In many cases the success of the business 
depends on keeping these processes secret. "Manufac- 
turers of the Naugatuck Valley protest against the enact- 
ment of a law which will give any man the power to enter 
their private rooms and to become possessed of secrets 
concerning their business which they have jealously 
guarded. It would be an outrage on private property in- 
terests to permit such an exposure or invasion of private 
rights. Much evil might result from such a law. It will be 
seen without long argument that corruption and black- 
mail would be more than possible in the execution of such 
a law." 

3. Injury to skilled workmen would result from the 
discovery of the skilled processes through which they 
have been able to reap high wages. 

4. Manufacturers are now liable to employees for in- 
jury to them, and they endeavor to make their factories 
safe and comfortable. A "system of government inspec- 
tion of factories would to a great extent remove this 
feeling of personal liability for negligence by factory 
owners and managers." The enforcement of an inspec- 
tion law "would not improve the condition of those 
whom it is designed to benefit," and "the execution of it 
would be attended with great expense to the State and it 
would most surely do great injustice to many manufac- 
turers." 

In accordance with the above fears and objections 
many amendments to the bill were adopted. One of these 
^ Hartford Daily Courant, 1886, March 24, p. i. 



667] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 255 

excepts from inspection "such rooms or places where the 
owner or owners may have valuable machines or pro- 
cesses, the value of which depends on safe keeping." 
Another amendment provides that any employer shall 
not be liable for damages to employees caused by "any 
machine or fixture on the premises, in relation to which 
the requirements of the State inspector shall have been 
and continue to be, fully complied with." 

Finally the whole matter was indefinitely postponed. 

In the legislature of 1887 a new bill (H. B. 42) for a 
factory inspection law was introduced. This bill was 
thoroughly discussed in both houses and passed by both. 
Attempts to secure a reconsideration of the bill failed 
and it became a law. 

This act (ch. 152) was substantially a copy of the law 
then in force in Massachusetts. It furnished the basis 
for the later legislation on this subject. The following 
is a digest of its provisions : 

Sec. I. The governor shall appoint an inspector of 
factories for a term of two years. 

Sec. 2. The inspector, as often as practicable, shall 
inspect all places where machinery is used. He shall 
receive a salary of fifteen hundred dollars a year; and 
shall report to the governor annually. 

Sec. 3. All factories shall be ventilated and kept as 
clean as the nature of the business will permit; belting, 
shafting, gearing, etc., where dangerous, shall be securely 
guarded; and the inspector may prohibit the cleaning, 
while running, of all machinery except engines. 

Sec. 4. The inspector may order the openings of all 
hoistways, hatchways, elevator wells, etc., to be protected 
by trap doors, self-closing hatches and safety catches. 

Sec. 5. Where more than five persons shall be em- 
ployed in a factory the employer shall provide suitable 
water-closet accommodations, and keep them in sanitary 
condition. 

Sec. 6. The factory inspector shall enforce this act 
by giving notices to owners or operators of the buildings 



256 American Economic Association [668 

inspected ; and he shall also make complaint to the state's 
attorneys of all violations. 

Sec. 7. Any owner, lessee or occupant of a building 
included within the provisions of this act shall, for any 
violation of sections three, four, or five thereof, forfeit 
to the state not less than fifty nor more than five hundred 
dollars, and shall also be liable to any employee for all 
damages suffered by him by reason of such violation. 
Four weeks shall be allowed in which to comply with an 
order of the inspector. 

Sec. 8. The orders and notices of the inspector shall 
be signed by him and served on the person ordered to 
make a change, and then filed in the office of the town 
clerk of the town in which the factory is located. 

Sec. 9. The inspector shall keep copies of all notices 
and orders given by him, and a record of all inspections 
made by him. 

Sec. 10. The inspector may from time to time employ 
special agents to assist him in his inspections, who shall 
be paid only for the time employed. Not over fifteen 
hundred dollars a year shall be expended under this 
section. 

No attempt will be made to discuss separately and 
chronologically each of the laws relating to factory in- 
spection, passed since the act of 1887. The different 
subjects to which these laws relate will be discussed in 
turn and the legal provisions on each subject will be 
given. This method will give a less perfect idea of the 
separate laws, but it will give a clearer idea of the legal 
development along certain lines. 

The Factory Inspector. — His term, salary, duties, and 
deputies. — The act of 1887 (ch. 152) provided for the 
appointment of an inspector by the governor, fixed his 
term of office at two years, and his salary at fifteen hun- 
dred dollars. This law made it his duty, as often as 
practicable, carefully to examine all buildings where 
machinery was used ; and authorized him to appoint from 
time to time ''special agents to assist him in his examina- 



669] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 257 

tions." These agents were to "receive compensation for 
the time actually employed in such service only," and the 
total amount of such compensation was limited to fifteen 
hundred dollars a year. In 1893 (ch. 206) these special 
agents were given "the same power and authority as the 
inspector subject to his approval," and the maximum 
limit of their compensation was raised from fifteen hun- 
dred to three thousand dollars. But, in 1903, three thou- 
sand dollars was not a sufficient amount to keep the two 
deputies at work all the time at fair wages. Therefore, 
although there was sufficient work for them to do, they 
were laid off part of the time. They were being paid 
five dollars a day. The chief inspector, according to one 
of the deputies, proposed that they work at four dollars 
a day and put in more days in the year. Thus, they 
would do the needed inspection and draw the same total 
amount of wages as before. The deputies objected to 
this and decided between themselves that they would 
secure a change in the law. They worked silently among 
senators, representatives and influential men, and secured 
many promises of support of their proposed change. 
When the legislature of 1903 met they drew up their bill 
and laid it before their chief. He told them they were 
asking too much, that they could never carry it, and that 
he would have nothing to do with it. They assured him 
that its passage was assured, and, finally, he went before 
the Committee on Labor and urged its enactment. There 
was practically no opposition and the bill was passed 
without a dissenting vote. 

This law (1903, ch. 97) lengthened the term of the 
factory inspector from two to four years, raised his 
salary from fifteen hundred to twenty-five hundred dol- 
lars a year, fixed the pay of the deputies at the definite 
amount of five dollars a day and necessary expenses, and 
raised the amount that might be expended for this pur- 



258 American Economic Association [670 

pose from three thousand to seven thousand dollars a 
year. This is the present law. 

While the practice of public officers securing the pas- 
sage of bills lengthening their own terms of office and 
raising their own salaries cannot be commended, the 
changes secured by this law were all needed. A factory 
inspector, before he can do thoroughly efficient work, 
must learn his business and become acquainted with the 
employers and the conditions in the different industries 
in the State. This takes time. Hence short terms and 
frequent change of inspectors is detrimental. A good 
inspector must be not only a practical mechanic, but also 
a man of tact, judgment, and administrative ability. A 
salary of fifteen hundred dollars a year will not secure 
such a man. Neither will a less amount than five dollars 
a day, with steady employment, secure an efficient and 
reliable deputy inspector. 

The Inspector's Orders. — The act of 1887 (ch. 152) 
provided that the inspector should enforce its provisions 
by giving orders or notices to the owners or operators 
of the factories or buildings inspected by him, and that 
he should also make complaint to the State's attorneys 
of violations of the act. The penalty for violation was a 
forfeit of from fifty to five hundred dollars. Persons 
notified were given four weeks in which to make the 
changes indicated, before suits could be brought for vio- 
lation of the act. The orders and notices of the inspector 
were to be signed by him, served upon the person re- 
quired to make a change, endorsed by the officer serving 
the same, and then filed in the office of the town clerk in 
which was located the factory or building to which such 
notices appertained. Such notice, so filed, was to be 
prima facie evidence that the notice was given. The 
inspector was further required to keep copies of all no- 



671] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 259 

tices and orders given by him, and a record of all inspec-. 
tions made. 

In 1889 (ch. 225) the penalty for violation was ex- 
tended to any attempts to hinder the inspector in his 
inspections; and in 1895 (ch. 206) the penalty for viola- 
tion of the general provisions of the act, or for obstruct- 
ing or hindering the inspector in carrying out the duties 
of his office, was reduced to "not more than fifty dollars." 
The penalty was extended to other sections of the inspec- 
tion laws by an act of 1903 (ch. 53). Section two of the 
law of 1895 provided that any person aggrieved by any 
order of an inspector of factories might appeal to the 
superior court of the county, stating the facts and reasons 
of appeal, and citing the inspector of factories to appear 
before the court. The court was given power to review 
the doings of the inspector and confirm or set them aside, 
and to make such order in the premises as it might find to 
be proper and equitable. 

All these provisions are still in force (G. S. 1902, sees. 
4520, 4522-4525)- 

That part of the law which requires the inspector to 
make complaint to the State's attorneys of all violations 
of the act has always been a dead letter. So, also, for 
the most part, has the provision requiring the inspector to 
serve notice on persons required to make changes, and to 
endorse the same and file them in the office of the town 
clerk. For the inspector to serve these notices personally 
would require much extra time and travel. To pay an 
officer the usual fees for serving them, as may be done 
under the statute, would be a large expense to the State. 
To avoid this trouble and expense it has been the custom 
of the factory inspection department to get the person 
notified to waive legal notice by signing and returning to 
the inspector an acknowledgment of receipt of the order. 



2 6o American Economic Association [672 

If trouble is anticipated the notice is filed with the town 
clerk in legal manner, otherwise not. 

Both of these provisions are superfluous and should be 
repealed. They are examples of the custom in Connecti- 
cut of creating an oflicer with power to give orders and 
then making it the duty of some other oflicer, often no 
higher or no more competent, to enforce those orders; 
and of the equally bad custom of rendering an otherwise 
good law cumbersome and unpractical by crowding it 
with a mass of useless detail. The result is, in the first 
case, that the orders often are not enforced by either 
oflicer, and neither of them feels responsible for their 
non-enforcement. The result in the latter case is that 
either the officer is hampered in his service by these use- 
less provisions, or else that he ignores them and loses a 
proper respect for the authority of the law which is laid 
down for his guidance. 

Reports of the Factory Inspector. — The law of 1887 
(ch. 152) provided that the factory inspector should 
report to the Governor annually ''the condition as re- 
spects safety to life and health, of the factories, buildings 
and places visited by him," and that such report should 
be printed for the use of the General Assembly. In 1889 
(ch. 173) the comptroller was authorized to cause to be 
printed annually five thousand copies of the report. 

The first report of the factory inspector, that for the 
year 1887, was not published until 1900.^ It contains 
only seven pages. Since 1889 there has been little change 
in the reports, except in size. The subject matter, and 
the arrangement, is practically the same. From ten to 
fifteen pages are taken up with a review of the work of 
the department, and with brief notes on such subjects as 
safety, ventilation, elevators, exhaust systems, etc. This 



^ The report for 1888 likewise was not published until 1900. 



673] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 261 

is followed by a record of all inspections made and all 
orders given, written out in full. This record occupied 
sixty-seven of the ninety-one pages of the report of 1895, 
ninety-four of the one hundred and twenty-eight pages 
of the report of 1900, and thirty-three of the one hundred 
and thirty pages of the report of 1905. The reports since 
1 90 1 have contained a directory of "Connecticut Manu- 
factures and Products." This covered fifty-nine pages 
of the report of 1905. For a number of years the reports 
have contained the factory inspection laws. 

The reports of the factory inspector have been unsatis- 
factory. There has never been much in them that would 
interest the ordinary citizen or the manufacturer. This 
should not be so. The inspector is in a position to learn 
much that is of general interest to the public and of 
special interest to manufacturers and laborers. Instead 
of devoting a few pages of the report to a brief mention 
of a few subjects he might well devote a large part of it 
to giving valuable information on these subjects and 
others. It is difficult to understand why the long record 
of inspections has been included in each report. It shows 
that the inspectors have visited so many factories and 
made so many inspections, it is true, but why take sixty 
or eighty pages to tell this ? A few representative orders, 
together with a table showing the total number of fac- 
tories inspected, the number in good condition, the num- 
ber in which orders were given, the total number of 
orders given, and a thorough and comprehensive classifi- 
cation of the orders given would not take up over a page 
or two and would be much more instructive than is the 
long list of unclassified orders. The inspection laws are 
very properly included in the report. The directory of 
"Connecticut Manufacturers and Products" probably is 
little referred to except by drummers and traveling men. 
However, it gives a comprehensive view of the industries 



262 American Economic Association [674 

carried on in the different sections of the State and is 
useful for reference. On the whole there is much room 
for improvement in these reports. 

Guarding Dangerous Machinery. — The act of 1887 
(ch. 152) provided that the "belting, shafting, gearing, 
machinery and drums" in factories, when so placed as 
in the opinion of the inspector to be dangerous, as far as 
practicable, should be securely guarded ; and that no ma- 
chinery in a factory, other than steam engines, should be 
cleaned while running, if forbidden by the inspector. 
This is the present law (G. S. 1902, sec. 4516). 

The first inspection of factories in 1887 showed that 
much of the machinery had been manufactured fifteen or 
twenty years prior to that time and was wholly unpro- 
tected by safeguards. Projecting set screws, and un- 
guarded gearings and shaftings were common. Acci- 
dents to fingers and hands were of frequent occurrence, 
and fatal accidents were not uncommon. The inspector's 
report for 1890 (p. 9) says: 

"During the year an effort has been made to collect 
statistics in regard to accidents to factory operatives. 
. . . The whole number of accidents reported was fifty : 
ten persons were killed, and some of the remaining forty 
were seriously injured. ... In some cases the acci- 
dents would not have occurred if suitable safeguards had 
been provided." 

For several years most of the time of the inspector 
was occupied in inspecting and giving orders for guard- 
ing dangerous machinery. Ih 1890, 489 factories were 
inspected. Orders were given in only 292 of these, the 
total number of orders being 710. Of these 710 orders, 
531 were for guarding dangerous machinery and set 
screws. In 1890 "of 710 changes ordered during the 
year [in 242 factories], 531 were for the better protection 
of dangerous machinery."^ 

^ Report Conn. Factory Inspector, 1890, p. 9. 



675] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 263 

Relatively, the proportion of orders given for the 
guarding of dangerous machinery has declined rapidly 
since 1887, although the inspections have become more 
careful, and although more careful guarding has been 
required by law. In 1890, 531 of the 710 orders given 
were for the guarding of dangerous machinery and pro- 
jecting set screws. This was one such order to each 
1.09 factories inspected. In 1895, 402 of the 918 orders 
given, or one for each .84 factory inspected, were for 
guarding dangerous machinery and set screws. In 1900, 
190 of the 496 orders given, being one for each .13 fac- 
tory inspected, were for this purpose. And in 1905, 10 1 
of the 376 orders given, being one order for each .05 
factory inspected, were for the same purpose. Most of 
the new machinery is now fairly well guarded when it 
is manufactured. However, many orders for the guard- 
ing of machinery are still necessary and accidents from 
unguarded machinery still occur. New machinery often 
is installed and the belts and shafting are not promptly 
and properly guarded. Then, flush set screws are some- 
times carelessly replaced by the old-fashioned projecting 
kind.^ The operatives sometimes remove the guards that 
have been provided for their protection, claiming that 
they hinder them in their work. 

Elevators. — The act of 1887 (ch. 152, sec. 4) empow- 
ered the factory inspector to order the openings of all 
hoistways, hatchways, elevator wells, and wheel holes 
in factories to be protected by ''good trap-doors, self- 
closing hatches, and safety-catches or other safeguards." 
At this time many of the elevators in the factories were 
of cheap construction and out of date. Many had but a 
single cable, most of them were without guards about the 
openings, and scarcely any of them had safety clutches to 
catch the car in case the cable broke. Many of them were 

* Report Conn. Factory Inspector, 1904, p. 15. 



264 American Economic Association [676 

run by mere boys, and it was customary for the em- 
ployees in factories to ride on the freight elevators. Acci- 
dents were of frequent occurrence, and many of them 
were fatal. Some improvement in closing the openings 
of elevator wells were made under the law of 1887; but 
the inspector claimed that this law did not authorize him 
to require safety clutches on elevator cars.^ It did not 
require him to make a special inspection of all elevators 
in the factories, and, hence, many of the old defects were 
not remedied and accidents continued. 

The factory inspector recommended further legal re- 
strictions,^ and in 1893 these were enacted. Chapter 59 
of the public acts of 1893 prohibited the employment of 
any person under sixteen years of age to operate an 
elevator; and chapter 118 extended the provisions of the 
law of 1887 (ch. 152, sec. 4) to mercantile establish- 
ments, and provided that all elevator cabs or cars, whether 
used for freight or passengers, should be provided with 
some suitable safety clutch to hold the cab or car in the 
event of accident to the shipper- rope or hoisting ma- 
chinery. 

With these changes in the law the employment of boys 
to operate elevators practically ceased, and much im- 
provement was made in the way of safety appliances and 
guards. Inspections were more frequent and accidents 
became less common."^ However, the law still did not 
require special inspection of elevators, and they were not 
inspected carefully and often. In 1896 the inspector re- 
ported^ that some elevators were not provided with safety 
clutches, and that the safety appliances on others were 
so rusted that they would not work in case of an accident 



" Report Conn. Factory Inspector, 1890, p. 5. 
* Ihid., 1890, p. 5 ; 1891, p. 12. 
^ Report Conn. Factory Inspector, 1894, p. 13. 
«/&ic?., 1896, p. 8. 



677] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 265 

to the shipper-rope or hoisting machinery. Since 1896 
there has been a much more careful and systematic in- 
spection of elevators,^ and accidents have been compara- 
tively infrequent. Automatic hatches have gradually re- 
placed the bars or chains which formerly were placed 
across the openings to the elevator wells. 

Before 1903 there was no inspection of the elevators 
in public buildings and dwellings, unless they were in- 
sured by employer's liability companies. An act of that 
year (ch. 97) provides for the inspection by the factory 
inspectors, of all elevators in factories, mercantile estab- 
lishments, store-houses, work-houses, dwellings, or other 
buildings. Many of these elevators were found to be in 
bad condition and without safety devices. On others the 
safety devices were broken or rusted so that they would 
not work. 

At present it is the custom of the factory inspectors to 
inspect all elevators every four months. But notwith- 
standing the frequent inspections of the last few years, 
elevators are found here and there over the State with 
bars or ropes, in place of automatic gates to close the 
openings to the elevator wells. These bars or ropes are 
sometimes found out of place and the wells left un- 
guarded. 

Accidents still occur, but they are due mainly to such 
carelessness as operatives riding on freight elevators, the 
leaving of elevator wells unguarded, and the use of the 
automatic hatches over elevator wells as passage ways 
between the different rooms. 

Ventilation and Sanitation. — The law of 1887 (ch. 
152, sec. 3) provided that all factories and buildings 
where machinery was used should be ventilated and kept 
as clean as the nature of the business would permit. This 



^ Ibid., 1896-1905. 



266 American Economic Association [678 

provision is the same in 1899 (^h. 119) and in 1902 
(G. S. sec. 4516). In 1887 the ventilation in many of 
the work rooms was very poor. Most of the factories 
had been built without any special provision having been 
made for ventilation. The report of the inspector for the 
year 1891 (p. 13) says: 

''In the early days of manufacturing but little attention 
was given to ventilation. Most factories therefore were 
not constructed with special arrangements for letting in 
fresh air. On the contrary, there is abundant evidence 
to show that, except in hot weather, every precaution was 
taken to keep it out. Many of the old workshops of this 
state bear testimony to the correctness of these state- 
ments. They are low studded, the rooms are small, they 
are crowded with machinery and have no means of venti- 
lation except the doors and windows, which, especially in 
cold weather, do the work poorly at the best. Not until 
recent years has due attention been given to ventilation 
by considering it when the plans for new buildings were 
in process of preparation. Even now the subject is fre- 
quently lost sight of in the desire to be economical. Some 
of the newer factory buildings in this state were con- 
structed with some mechanical means of ventilation, and 
some of the old structures have been improved by putting 
in fans, blowers and other appliances. A still larger 
number depend entirely upon natural ventilation as fur- 
nished by the doors and windows." 

The ventilation that could be required under the gen- 
eral provision of the act of 1887 was found insufficient 
to protect the health of employees in certain industries, 
and in 1893 (^h. 204) it was enacted that whenever the 
inspector of factories should find it necessary for the 
preservation of the health of the employees, in any place 
where buffing, polishing, or grinding metals was carried 
on, or in any place where excessive dust was generated, 
that such excessive dust be removed from the room, he 
might order the introduction and operation of such appli- 



679] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 267 

ances as might be necessary to remove such dust, so far 
as the nature of the business would permit. 

This law was much needed. In the grinding of mine- 
rals and in buffing and polishing and in certain kinds of 
wood work a very injurious dust is made; and in certain 
other manufacturing processes very injurious gases are 
generated. Before 1893 the workmen in most of the fac- 
tories were inhaling this dust and these gases. It was 
very injurious to their health. A few of the factories, 
however, had put in exhaust systems to remove the dust 
and gases. These were expensive and manufacturers 
were slow in putting them in after the law was passed. 
Some of the first systems put in did not work well ; but 
they were gradually improved and more and more of 
them were put into the factories. For several years they 
have been in general use in those factories where dust is 
created or gases generated. Ventilating fans are also 
found in many of the factories, where they are needed 
and the nature of the business will permit of their use. 

The question of proper ventilation is now receiving 
more attention, and is considered when the plans for new 
buildings are being prepared. A number of the old fac- 
tories are still inadequately ventilated, and a successful 
system for ventilating cotton, woolen, and shoddy mills, 
without carrying away the cotton, wool or shoddy, has 
not come into use. Some of the factories are not "kept 
as clean as the nature of the business will permit." 

Light. — Before 1899 there was no law in Connecticut 
requiring that workrooms be well lighted. Many of the 
factories, especially the old ones, were not sufficiently 
well lighted. Complaints were made to the factory in- 
spector in 1898 that the eyesight of the employees in 
some of the factories was being injured from want of 
sufficient light while at their work. The report (p. 9) 
says: 



268 American Economic Association [680 

"These complaints were investigated, and there is no 
doubt in the minds of the Inspector and the expert oculist 
employed, that there were just grounds for complaint, 
but there is no way under the present law whereby the 
owners can be compelled to make any improvement." 

The inspector recommended that the law be extended 
to cover this point, and the next year (1899, ch. 119) the 
law (G. S. 1888, sec. 2265) was so amended as to require 
that factories be well lighted (G. S. 1902, sec. 4516). 
The new factories of the State are well lighted. Some of 
the old factories were never provided with many win- 
dows; often, now, they are crowded with machinery in 
such a manner as to shut off the light from workmen in 
the middle of the rooms. 

About 1900 corrugated glass was often put in the win- 
dows of new factories. The reason for using this glass 
was to keep employees from looking out of the windows 
and neglecting their work, and to keep persons on the 
outside from looking into the work rooms. It was 
claimed, also, and correctly, that in wide rooms this glass 
distributed the light more evenly about the room than the 
ordinary clear glass. But because of the corrugated sur- 
face the rays of light passing through this glass at differ- 
ent points on its surface are refracted at different angles 
and in different directions, thus causing the numerous 
rays to cross each other within the room. This crossing 
of the rays of light before they have proceeded far enough 
into the room to become thoroughly diffused produces 
numerous focal points. A large number of such foci 
dazzles and injures the eye. Experience in using such 
glass in the factory windows showed that if the men were 
working at fine work, such as fine tool making, within 
the distance from the windows at which the rays of light 
became diffused (twelve to fifteen feet) their eyes were 
injured. The report of the factory inspector for 1900 
(p. 10) says: 



68i] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 269 

"At one factory . . . fourteen men out of sixteen 
men stated that this Hght had injured their sight. An 
expert ocuHst was called into the factory, who stated that 
in his opinion the light from this glass was the cause of 
the trouble the operatives had with their eyes. This 
company changed the glass by substituting a clear light 
in the sash and no trouble has been experienced since." 

To prevent the further introduction and use of such 
glass, with the consequent injury to the eyes of the em- 
ployees, a law was passed in 1901 (ch. 97) which pro- 
vided that any firm or corporation using stained, painted, 
or corrugated glass in factory windows, where its use 
was injurious to the eyes of the workmen, should remove 
it upon the order of the inspector of factories. This glass 
has been removed where its use was deemed injurious. 

In the opinion of the writer, the use of such glass is 
ahvays injurious to the eyes of any person working near 
the windows, whether the work be fine work or not, and 
should be replaced by clear, smooth glass. A casual obser- 
vation of the eyes of any large group of factory operatives 
as they pass in or out of the factory will convince any fair- 
minded person that they should be provided with the 
best light possible, and that they should not be prohibited, 
by the use of stained, painted, or corrugated glass in the 
windows, from resting their tired eyes by looking for an 
instant away from their work into the outside world. 

Far too little attention has been paid to the proper 
lighting of work rooms. We are too apt to think of the 
work of the factory operatives as being coarse, manual 
labor, which does not tax their eyes. Often this is not so. 
Much of the work is fine, as, for example, inspecting 
needles ; much of it requires constant and close attention ; 
often the work upon which the operatives' gaze is riveted 
all day long is in constant and rapid motion. These 
things, together with the dust, and sometimes gases, of 



270 American Economic Association [682 

the factory, often make the work of a factory operative 
especially trying to the eyes. The glassy eye, the listless 
eye, the staring eye, and the watery eye are far too com- 
mon in any group of our factory operatives. 

In the winter afternoons artificial lights are necessary. 
Often these are placed so as best to light up the work, 
and with little regard to the operatives' eyes. In one 
work room visited by the writer one hundred women 
were at work spooling thread. A few inches in front of 
each operative and about on a level with her eyes was an 
electric light, so placed that almost the full glare of it 
would come into her eyes. With a few exceptions the 
women were young, most of them but girls, yet an actual 
count showed that twenty per cent, of them were wearing 
eye glasses. The writer attributed this large per cent, 
to the nature of their work and to the position of these 
lights. 

Water Closets. — The matter of the provision of proper 
water closet accommodations in factories and workshops 
is one that concerns directly the health and morals of the 
operatives. Common decency should cause employers 
to provide sufficient accommodations and to keep them in 
a sanitary condition; yet this subject has given the fac- 
tory inspectors more trouble than any one point of seem- 
ingly similar importance, and they have been less success- 
ful in securing thorough and lasting reform along this 
line than any other. The difficulty has been due mainly 
to the defective law ; to the carelessness and stinginess of 
employers in incurring expenditures which do not in- 
crease, directly, the profits of the business; and to the 
filthy habits and destructive tendencies of a part of the 
operatives, and to the fact that the others are not in a 
position to demand better conditions. 

The only law on the subject is that contained in the 
act of 1887 (ch. 152, sec. 5). This provided that in 



683] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 271 

every factory or other building where more than five 
persons should be employed, "suitable water closet ac- 
commodations for the use of the persons employed" 
should be provided and kept in "good sanitary condi- 
tion." The law is the same in the revision of 1902 (sec. 

4519)- 

This law was very inadequate. The employers in- 
sisted on calling whatever they happened to have "suit- 
ablt water closet accommodations." When the law was 
passed, and until long afterwards, some of the factories 
had no accommodations whatever. Often the closets 
were few in number, and, in many cases, separate ones 
were not provided for the different sexes. They were 
of the gravity kind and were without traps. Often they 
were neglected and foul, and endangered the health of 
the operatives. ^^ Many of them were earth closets and at 
a distance from the factories. 

These conditions, endangering both the health and 
morals of the operatives, were remedied slowly. Em- 
ployers continued to interpret the word "suitable" to suit 
the conditions in their factories. In 1894 there were still 
some failures to provide separate closets for men and 
women, closets with doors which would shut, and closets 
that were properly drained. The report of the factory 
inspector for 1899 (p. 10) says: 

"The word 'suitable' is sometimes looked at in different 
ways by employers of labor. In one instance a factory 
was found in which seventy-five operatives were provided 
with one closet. It was learned that there were two 



^^ "The water closets in some establishments were found in very- 
bad condition. Many of them have no traps, and foul air has free 
passage to the rooms where the operatives are employed. The 
number of cases of ill-health caused by these filthy places cannot be 
easily estimated. Local physicians of long experience attribute a 
large share of the sickness amongst factory operatives to this one 
cause."— Report Conn. Factory Inspector, 1889, p. 7. 



272 American Economic Association [684 

closets for this room originally, but the lessee had torn 
out one to make more room." 

Even. to-day accommodations in many factories are not 
what they should be. In cases the water-closet accommo- 
dations were built years ago when the factory was small 
and the employees were few. Additions have since been 
built and the number of employees largely increased, but 
the water-closet accommodations remain the same. Some 
factories have not yet put in flush closets ; some still have 
earth closets at a distance from the factories ; and in some 
the sanitary condition of the closets is not properly looked 
after. 

The factory inspectors have time and again insisted on 
the necessity of a more explicit law, and one under which 
a negligent employer would not have four weeks in which 
to comply with an order to clean an unsanitary closet, as 
he has under the present law.^^ In 1889 the report of the 
inspector (p. 7) says : 

"In about one-fourth of the establishments in which 
changes were ordered, it was necessary to give notice that 
the water closets must be kept in better condition." 

The report of 1895 (p. 10) says: 

''The law in regard to the sanitary conditions of water 
closets especially is often violated. Several extremely 
bad cases have been found which would be condemned by 
any Board of Health." 

Much of this failure to provide suitable water closet 
accommodations is due alone to the carelessness and sting- 
iness of the employers. The provision of such improve- 
ments has no direct effect on the product and hence they are 
improvements for which employers get no direct return. 
Therefore, they are slow about incurring an expense of 
several hundred dollars to put a system of flush closets 
in their factories. But the employers are not always wholly 

"" Reports Conn. Factory Inspector, 1888, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 
1896, 1899. 



685] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 273 

to blame for their slowness in providing better water closet 
accommodations. Often where they have provided a 
nice system of flush closets at an expense of several hun- 
dred dollars, they have been rewarded in the course of 
a week or two by finding the covers torn off, the doors 
broken or cut full of holes, the lead pipes with holes 
bored in them and the walls defaced — all by the em- 
ployees for whose accommodation they were built. A 
number of such cases were pointed out to the writer. 

Dressing Rooms. — Connecticut has never had a law 
requiring employers to provide dressing rooms for the 
use of their employees, and comparatively few of the 
factories have such rooms. The wraps, hats, lunch boxes, 
etc., of the operatives are exposed to the dust of the 
working rooms, and usually no provision whatever is 
made for their changing their clothing before going onto 
the street. Dining or lunch rooms are almost unknown 
in the great mass of the factories of the State. 

Toilet Rooms in Foundries. — In 1905 (ch. 140) the 
first law in regard to toilet rooms was passed. It applies 
only to foundries and provides that : 

''The factory inspector shall have power ... to 
require the proprietor of any foundry ... in which 
ten or more men are employed ... to provide for 
the use of such employees a toilet room of such suitable 
dimensions as such inspector may determine, containing 
wash bowls or sinks connected with running water, with 
facilities for heating the same, such room to be directly 
connected with the foundry building, properly heated, 
ventilated, and protected from the dust of said foundry." 

The penalty for refusal to obey such order is a fine 
of not more than fifty dollars. 

This law was proposed and its passage secured by the 
organized foundrymen of the State. The moulders' 
unions of the State worked for its passage, and the 
foundry owners opposed it. The unions were defeated 



2 74 American Economic Association [686 

once and brought the bill up a second time and secured 
its passage. 

Such toilet rooms are especially needed in the foun- 
dries. The moulder's work is dirty to begin with. When 
he is "pouring off" he works rapidly and perspires freely. 
The molten iron gives off a peculiar and very disagree- 
able odor which thoroughly scents his clothing. For 
these reasons he should not go on the street or get into 
a car until he has taken a bath and changed his clothing. 

The law calls only for "wash bowls or sinks." What 
is needed are shower baths, with dressing rooms con- 
taining separate lockers for the men's clothing. The 
factory inspectors are inducing the foundry owners to 
provide rooms with properly drained sink floors of ce- 
ment, and with hot and cold water. Some of them are 
putting in shower baths and dressing rooms. The law 
should be so amended that it would not be necessary for 
the inspector, in order to secure the kind of bathing 
facilities needed, to interpret the word "sinks" to mean 
a room with an impermeable sink floor, as he does now. 

Health. — In 1869 it was enacted that whoever should 
employ in the manufacture of paper any person who had 
not had the small-pox or been vaccinated, should pay to 
any town all expenses caused it by the sickness of such 
person with small-pox, contracted while so employed. 
This law is still on the statute books (G. S. 1902, sec. 
4693). So far as the writer has learned it has always 
been a dead letter. It was passed as a protective measure. 
The paper mills handled foreign rags, and it was believed 
that the women employed sorting these were in danger 
of catching this disease. 

Fire Escapes. — The first law in Connecticut regarding 
the means of egress from factories in case of a fire was 
delayed until 1881. There was much need for such a law 
many years sooner. In 1850 there were 3,737 manufac- 



687] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 275 

turing and mechanical establishments in the State, em- 
ploying a total of S^y72>7 wage earners; and in 1880 there 
were 4,448 such establishments with a total of 112,915 
wage earners. In only a few of the new factories had any 
provision been made for the protection of these em- 
plo3^ees in case of fire. In the few cases where fire escapes 
were provided they were usually iron ladders parallel 
with the wall of the building. They might have been of 
use to men and boys in case of a fire, but they would 
have been almost useless to excited and frightened women 
and girls. The stairways, particularly in the old build- 
ings, were few, narrow, tortuous, and steep. 

The act of 1881 (ch. ^2) was as follows: 

Sec. I. "Every story above the second story, not in- 
cluding the basement, in any workshop or manufactory 
on which floor more than ten operatives are employed, 
shall be provided . . . with more than one way of 
egress by stairways on the inside, or fire escapes on the 
outside of the building, and such stairways and fire es- 
capes shall be kept free from obstruction, and shall be 
accessible from each room in said story." 

Sec. 2. 'Tt shall be the duty of selectmen of the town 
or of the fire marshal of any city in which such building- 
is situated to examine all buildings referred to in the first 
section of this act, and if on examination they find that 
such building is provided with fire escapes equivalent to 
two sufficient stairways and furnish the owner thereof 
with a certificate to that effect, said owner shall not be 
liable under this act." 

Sec. 3. "Every owner of such building who shall vio- 
late the provisions of this act shall, on conviction, be fined 
fifty dollars." 

In 1883 the act of 1881 was replaced by a new law 
(ch. 125). The only changes, so far as the law applied 
to factories, were the inclusion of the warden of the 
borough with the first selectman of the town and the fire 
marshal of the city as inspectors of buildings for proper 



276 American Economic Association [688 

means of egress, and the provision that where a building 
was found provided with proper means of egress a certi- 
ficate to that effect should be given the owner. 

The acts of 1881 and 1883 were very inadequate and 
indefinite. The report of the factory inspector in 1888 
(p. 7) says: 

"There is no law that defines what shall constitute a 
proper fire-escape. In some cases a straight wood or 
iron ladder runs from the roof or upper story to the 
ground with either no balcony or, where there are land- 
ings, they oftentimes have no guard or railing around 
them to prevent falling off if crowded, as they would be 
in a panic caused by a cry of fire. Some assert that it 
answers the law if a common wooden ladder is put up 
against the building, to be moved from place to place as 
an emergency may arise. To descend some of these lad- 
ders from a high building would require a practiced 
acrobat, to say nothing of frightened and timid women 
and children in peril of their lives attempting it." 

Often where fire escapes were provided they were ren- 
dered almost useless by being placed where they were not 
easy of access and by being obstructed. The law, in fact, 
did not require that there be any fire escapes. The report 
of the factory inspector for 189 1 (p. 9) says: 

"It is practically a matter of choice with the owners 
of factories whether they will equip them with fire es- 
capes. Those who mean to be upon the safe side put 
them on their buildings, and those who merely consider 
the cost rather than the safety do not. It follows, there- 
fore, that the chief protection which operatives get from 
possible fires comes from the liberality of their employers 
rather than from any requirement of the law. The exist- 
ing law provides that there shall be two ways of egress 
from buildings, but does not necessarily require fire 
escapes at all. If there are two doors it answers the 
requirements no matter how high or how large the 
building may be. One door and one escape would answer 
the terms of the law." 



689] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 277 

But what the law required or did not require made 
little difference, for it was not enforced. With few ex- 
ceptions the local officers seem to have neglected to inspect 
the factories. The report of the factory inspector for 
1893 (p. 8) says: 

"But in many towns, and especially as to factory build- 
ings, the law is practically obsolete, and no examinations 
are made." 

The following is from the report for 1894 (p. 7) : 

"In the course of my examination of factories through- 
out the state, I have found that there are comparatively 
few places where the local authorities have complied with 
the law. They do not appear to regard the examinations 
as incumbent upon them, and there is no exaggeration in 
saying that the law is practically obsolete throughout 
Connecticut to-day." 

In 1893 (^^- 105) the mayor of a city where there was 
no fire marshal was placed on the list of those whose duty 
it was to inspect the buildings as to proper means of 
egress, and in 1895 an attempt was made to strengthen 
the fire-escape law in several of its weak points. That 
part of the act of 1895 (ch. 254) relating to factories 
and workshops was as follows : 

Every workshop or manufactory which shall be more 
than two stories in height and in which more than twenty 
persons shall be employed above the first story, "shall be 
provided with at least one fire escape, of iron or other 
incombustible material, on the outside of said building; 
and if such building shall be more than one hundred and 
fifty feet in length, then it shall be provided with one 
such fire escape for every one hundred and fifty feet, or 
fractional part thereof exceeding fifty feet in length of 
such building; and such fire escapes shall be conveniently 
accessible from each story of said building." 

The failure of the owner of every such building to 
provide such fire escapes within three months after he 
shall receive notice to do so from the building inspector 
shall be punished by a fine of five hundred dollars, or 
imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. 



278 American Economic Association [690 

"It shall be the duty of the building inspector of each 
city, the warden of each borough, and the first selectman 
of each town not having a building inspector, ... to 
inspect all of the above-named buildings at least once 
each year . . . and to see that the provisions of this 
act are complied with. . . . And said city, borough 
or town shall fix and pay the compensation for all ser- 
vices under the provisions of this act." 

(1883, ch. 125; G. S. 1888, sees. 2645-2647; and 
1893, ch. 105, are repealed.) 

This act, passed by the General Assembly of 1895, was 
still weak in that it still accepted as a legally constructed 
fire escape a narrow iron ladder built parallel to the wall 
of the building; and especially in that it still left the 
enforcement of the law in the hands of local ofhcers who 
had already shown that they could not be depended upon 
to enforce a fire escape law. The act was further weak- 
ened by an amendment (1895, ch. 346) passed by the 
same General Assembly before its adjournment. This 
amendment provides that fire escapes as required by the 
act need not be built if "it shall be made to appear to the 
building inspector or other proper authority . . . that 
said building is already supplied with a sufficient number 
of safe and proper means of egress." This amendment 
was passed to satisfy those who, at an additional expense, 
had built what they termed fire-proof buildings. They 
claimed that it was unjust and unnecessary to compel 
them to go to the additional expense of placing fire 
escapes on their buildings. 

The law of 1895 is the law of to-day (G. S. 1902, sees. 
2628-2631). It has never been efficiently enforced. The 
building inspectors 'of some cities inspect the factories 
and attempt to enforce the law, but most of them do noth- 
ing until they are notified by the factory inspector that 
violations exist. Only the larger cities have building 
inspectors, and even such cities as New Haven and 



691] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 279 

Waterbury had no such officers until the last few years. 
"In some cities the building inspectors devote their entire 
time to their work, and order changes to be made by 
property owners to comply with the law, but in other 
places, very little inspection work is done, and the condi- 
tions are not bettered much each year in this respect."^^ 

The other local officers generally have done nothing 
about enforcing the law, and where they have, usually it 
has been only after the factory inspector has notified 
them of violations, and informed them of their duty in 
the matter. Even then some of them are loath to take 
any action. "Sometimes the inspector is told *I shall 
get out of office in a short time and I will leave that for 
the other fellow.' "^^ In one bad case complaint was 
made to the local officers by the factory inspector for over 
three years before anything was done by them.^^ The 
inspector's report for 1900 (p. 14) says: 

"In other places, where the factories visited do not 
have suitable fire-escapes, the selectmen are notified at 
once, but often fail to do anything in the matter except 
to show the complaint received from the inspector of 
factories, and nothing more is done." 

The report of the factory inspector for 1903 (p. 12) 
says: 

"It is safe to say that only a part of the selectmen of 
the different towns of the state know that it devolves 
upon them to perform the duties of building inspector."^^ 

The truth of this statement was verified by personal 
inquiries by the writer. 

The factory inspection department must be given the 
credit of having secured most of what enforcement of 
this law there has been. Neither the fire escape law nor 

"Report Conn. Factory Inspector, 1903, p. 12. 

" Reports Conn. Factory Inspector, 1899, p. 9 ; 1900, p. 14. 

^^ Ihid., 1900, p. 14. 

"^ See also Report of 1897, P- 8. 



28o American Economic Association [692 

the factory inspection laws make it the duty of the fac- 
tory inspector to enforce this law, yet for several years 
it has been the custom of the inspector, whenever he finds 
a factory with insufficient means of egress, to notify the 
local officer whose duty it is to enforce the fire escape law. 
For the years 1895- 1897 over sixty cases of factories 
having insufficient means of egress were reported to the 
local authorities. Through this medium these local of- 
ficials often first learn what their duties in the matter are ; 
and, as the factory inspector keeps press copies of the 
notifications sent them, they often find it advisable (in 
order to escape a predicament should a fire occur after 
they have been notified of the existing conditions) to 
enforce the law in these cases. In most other cases ig- 
norance of their duty, negligence, and local feeling and 
politics prevent them from forcing the manufacturers 
of their town to make an expenditure of several hundred 
dollars each to provide their factories with fire escapes. 

The factories that have been constructed in Connecticut 
during the last few years usually are either fire-proof or 
slow-burning buildings, and they are mostly provided 
with fire escapes, or with broad, well-lighted stairways 
at either end of the rooms, and shut off from the rooms 
proper by fire-proof doors. Many of the old factories, 
however, are not yet properly supplied with means of 
egress. There are yet many fire escapes of the iron lad- 
der variety, built parallel with the wall of the building, 
and some of them without platforms at the different 
floors. A few of the old wooden fire escapes are still in 
use; and some factories have only the stairways. The 
fire escapes are not always ready for use. The report of 
the factory inspector for 1903 (p. 10) says : 

'Tn several factories visited, the fire escapes on the 
outside and one of the inside stairways were found so 
obstructed that they could not be used. The tenants of 



693] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 281 

such buildings were crowded for room, and were using 
the iron fire escapes and inside entry ways, which con- 
tained stairway leading to another floor, for storage 
purposes." 

On the following page the same report continues : 

"Windows and doors providing an entrance to fire 
escapes are sometimes found securely fastened. . . . 
In a new platform to a fire escape the opening through 
which the ladder passed to the floor below was found to 
be too small to allow any person to pass through except 
a small boy." 

In most of the factories the doors do not open outward, 
and in many of the old factories the stairs are dark, nar- 
row, steep, tortuous, and frequently are not shut off from 
the working rooms by fire-proof doors. In such cases a 
fire on the first floor soon would so fill the stairways with 
smoke as to make them almost useless. 

It is evident that the thing needed in Connecticut to 
secure the proper observance of the fire escape law is to 
place its enforcement in charge of the factory inspectors. 
These officials visit the factories at least once a year for 
the purpose of inspection on other points and can easily, 
and really do now, inspect them as to means of egress. 
Were they made responsible for such inspection, and 
were they given power to enforce the law where they now 
make complaint to the local officers, there is reason to 
believe that there would be a marked improvement in the 
means of egress from factories. The factory inspectors 
in their reports always have complained of the non- 
enforcement of the fire escape law by the local officers, 
and they have recommended, time and again, that its 
enforcement be placed in charge of the factory inspector. 
Several bills to this effect have been before the legisla- 
ture, but the opposition to them by the owners of build- 
ings has always been strong enough to defeat them. 

Seats for Female Employees. — In 1893 (ch. yy) it 
was enacted that employers of females in mercantile, 



282 American Economic Association [694 

mechanical or manufacturing establishments should pro- 
vide suitable seats for the use of such females, and should 
permit them to use such seats when not necessarily en- 
gaged in the active duties for which they were employed. 
The penalty for violation was a fine of from five to fifty 
dollars for each offense. The law is the same in the 
revision of 1902 (sec. 4703). 

This act makes no provision for its enforcement. The 
factory inspector at different times has reported that the 
law was very generally complied with in the factories/^ 
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its report for 1897 
(p. 180) says: 

"personal investigation was made whether or not the 
statute . . . was complied with. No cause for com- 
plaint was found in any case." 

Notwithstanding these statements, personal observa- 
tion by the writer in a large number of the factories of 
the State showed that, except in the cases where the 
women sit at their work, only in a minority of the fac- 
tories are the female employees furnished with ''suitable" 
seats. Many of the girls sit on boxes, some sit crowded 
in the windows, or on the steam pipes, while some are 
provided with suitable stools or chairs. Often the num- 
ber of seats is insufficient. The investigation of the 
writer did not extend to the stores, but from several 
inquiries made the law seems to be complied with there 
more carefully than in the factories. The enforcement 
of this law, too, so far as it relates to factories, should be 
placed in charge of the factory inspector. 

II. Tenement House Workshops. 
New York City and Boston have long been centers for 
sweat shops and tenement house workshops of the worst 
sort. The sweat shop laws of New York and Massachu- 

" Reports Conn. Factory Inspector, 1893, p. 15; 1895, p. 12. 



695] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 283 

setts have been made more stringent from time to time 
and inspections have become more and more careful. 
Sweat shops cannot thrive where there are strict regula- 
tions and close inspections, and it was claimed that to 
escape restriction and regulation the sweat shops were 
moving from New York and Massachusetts into Con- 
necticut, and practicing there the same system of sweat- 
ing they had carried on in New York City and Boston. 

As a protective measure against these threatened evils 
the Connecticut legislature of 1899 passed a tenement 
house workshop law.^^ This law (ch. 199) provides 
that: 

''The inspector of factories shall as often as practicable 
carefully examine all buildings, apartments, rooms and 
places in any tenement or dwelling house used for resi- 
dential purposes and used in whole or in part other than 
by the immediate miembers of the family therein, for the 
manufacture of coats, vests, trousers, knee pants, over- 
alls, cloaks, skirts, shirts, ladies' waists, artificial flowers, 
purses, cigars, cigarettes, or any article of wearing ap- 
parel intended for sale." 

'Tt shall be the duty of persons engaged in the manu- 
facture of such goods in such premises within thirty days 
after beginning such manufacture ... to notify said 
inspector of the location of said workroom or work- 
rooms, the nature of the work carried on, and the number 
of persons therein employed." 

Such workrooms at all times shall be kept "in a thor- 
oughly clean and sanitary condition" and be "properly 
lighted and ventilated and fit for the occupancy of the 
persons engaged in work therein." 

The inspector shall notify the owner of such work- 
rooms and the person using the same to provide ample 
means for lighting and ventilating them, and to put them 

" "At the public hearing this bill was strongly advocated by John 
F. Kenefick, a member of the Cigar Makers' Union, No. 42, who 
represented the Hartford Central Labor Union, W. W. Ives, chief 
clerk of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and others." — Report Annual 
Convention Connecticut Branch American Federation of Labor, 1899. 



284 American Economic Association [696 

in a thoroughly clean, sanitary, and fit condition for 
occupancy for said work. 

Any violation of this act shall be punished by a fine of 
not more than five hundred dollars. 

The law is the same in the revision of 1902 (sees. 

4527-4530)- 

This act, as has been said, was passed merely as a 
protective measure. It is far less strong than similar 
laws in New York and Massachusetts. According to it 
a tenement house workshop is a room "in any tenement 
or dwelling house used for residential purposes and used 
in whole or in part other than by the immediate members 
of the family therein" for the manufacture of certain 
specified articles. This does not include shops in build- 
ings not used for residential purposes. It does not pro- 
hibit the manufacture of sweat shop goods by the imme- 
diate members of the family, even in their own living 
rooms; and it is questionable whether it prohibits such 
manufacture in the living rooms by others than the im- 
mediate members of the family. The law (sees, i & 3) 
seems only to provide for the inspection, proper lighting, 
ventilation, and cleanliness of such places when they are 
used by other than immediate members of the family. 
The law does not reach such persons as those who, in the 
sweat shop districts of large cities, as New York, Boston, 
and Chicago, are the most oppressed and helpless and 
whose products most endanger public health — the ignor- 
ant and poverty stricken tenement house worker, who 
works alone or with her children, in her own dirty tene- 
ment, for long hours every day, trying to eke out a mis- 
erable existence at the starvation wages paid her. Fortu- 
nately, Connecticut has few of this class. 

Many places in Connecticut which would be called 
sweat shops or tenement house workshops in New York 
City are not such under the Connecticut statute. Ladies' 



697] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 285 

wrappers, knee pants, etc., are made in small, crowded 
shops, and tailors very often send out suits to be finished 
in the homes, but the law does not extend to such cases. 

In 1899 ^^d in 1900 the reports of the factory in- 
spector state that investigations were made to discover 
whether or not the statement that sweat shops were mov- 
ing from New York and Massachusetts to Connecticut 
was true. No cases of such removal were discovered, 
and only one case of a tenement house workshop that 
came under the law was found. The report of 1900 
(p. 12) says: 

"One hundred and one places where clothing and 
cigars are manufactured have been visited during the 
past year. Only in one instance could a place be called 
a sweat shop. In the manufacture of clothing several 
different modes of manufacture were noticed. In some 
places the manufacture of clothing was carried on in 
mercantile buildings, the upper stories of which were 
filled with numerous small shops containing one or two 
rooms where ready-made clothing was turned out. It 
was found that such tailors lived in different localities 
and did not reside in buildings where shops were located. 
These men were mostly union men. No small children 
were found employed at any of these places, and the 
rooms were not crowded, as usually only from three to 
seven persons were employed. Another class found were 
located in dwelling houses, where one room was set apart 
as a workroom. No children were found employed in 
any of these places. Usually a man would start in busi- 
ness for himself who had been working in some larger 
concern. Seldom over three or four persons were found 
employed in such workrooms. They were usually as 
clean as any ordinary tailor shop. In some such places 
visited the plumbing of the building was found out of 
order and the plumbing inspector of the city was notified. 
In other places visited, it was found that the goods manu- 
factured came from the large tailor shops, who sent out 
vests and pants to be made. It was sometimes the sole 
means of support of persons making them. No outside 



286 



American Economic Association 



[698 



help was employed. It is doubtful if there exists in Con- 
necticut any such conditions as are reported by the in- 
spectors of large cities like New York or Boston. It is 
possible, however, that a few such places are in exist- 
ence." 

The foregoing is fairly descriptive of present condi- 
tions in the State. There are very few shops that come 
under the law, and the Hmited investigation which the 
writer has been able to make has not disclosed any. 



III. The Regulation and Inspection of Bakeries 
In 1893 the first attempt was made to secure a law 
providing for the regulation and inspection of bakeries. 
The bill introduced in the legislature that year (H. B. 
498) prohibited the establishment of cellar bakeries, and 
provided that all bakeshops should be well lighted and 
ventilated, and that they should be inspected by the fac- 
tory inspector. At the hearing the journeymen bakers' 
unions appeared with counsel favoring the bill, and the 
employers came with counsel to oppose it. The attorney 
for the employers claimed the bill was so drawn that, if 
passed, it would compel a number of employers to go out 
of business. The chairman of the Committee on Labor, 
before which the hearing was held, recommended that 
the labor organizations take hold of the matter them- 
selves and report any unsanitary places to the Board of 
Health. ^^ The bill was reported unfavorably and re- 
jected. 

The bakers' unions did not stop their agitation for a 
law, as is shown by the following quotation from the 
report of the Connecticut Bureau of Labor Statistics for 
1896 (p. 261) : 



^^ Report Annual Convention Connecticut Branch American Feder- 
ation of Labor, 1893; Report Conn. Bureau Labor Statistics, 1893, 
p. 258. 



699] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 287 

"At the solicitation of the Bakers and Confectioners 
International Union, made through their organization in 
this state, an inspection has been made by agents of this 
Bureau in the cities of the state." 

The bureau ''with zeal and energy made minute and 
thorough examination into the prominent evils attending 
the unsanitary conditions of the Cellar Bakeries" which 
abounded in the State. The following quotations from 
the report of the bureau^^ show the very bad conditions 
of many of the cellar shops at this time: 

''While the investigation has been comparatively lim- 
ited in scope and duration, it has developed the fact that 
the condition of most of the shops demand sanitary im- 
provement and imperative legislation in that direction is 
needed." 

"Of the 181 shops inspected, ninety-seven were re- 
ported clean, fifty-seven as dirty, and twenty-seven as 
filthy. The term 'dirty' used signifies that the surround- 
ings and tools were not in such a condition as to conduce 
to a clean product. 'Filthy' means about all the word 
signifies. Places were found which were swarming with 
vermin, and, even while bread was being kneaded, cock- 
roaches were holding high carnival on the kneading 
board." 

"And yet the agents sent out to look into this subject, 
have found bakeries in which filthy, foul and ill-smelling 
water closets were maintained in the room and in close 
proximity to where the bread was being prepared." 

"Aluch carelessness was found in the protection of the 
materials used from contamination. In one place butter, 
lard, sugar and flour were found standing in a stable but 
a few feet from a horse. Some of the cases were uncov- 
ered and were absorbing the odors of the stable. It was 
not uncommon to find leaky sewer pipes running over 
kneading boards and barrels of supplies." 

"Of 181 shops inspected, ninety-five were situated in 
cellars. ... In all of this class of shops the ventilation 



Report for 1896, pp. 261-268. 



2 88 American Economic Association [700 

was found to be of the poorest. ... In some of these 
shops it was necessary to use artificial Hght all the time." 

''When to the damp cellar is added the fact that some 
of them are less than six feet in height, it can readily be 
understood that the lot of the journeyman baker is not 
an enviable one." 

''As a matter of fact, the average cellar bakery breaks 
every law of sanitation, and presents a state of affairs 
that would not be tolerated for a moment in any other 
industry. Put the matter in another way: A large part 
of the output of bread is prepared on premises that would 
not be passed as fit for slaughter houses." 

"The investigation has shown that nearly all the cellar 
bakeries are overrun with rats, mice, cockroaches and 
other vermin. Then the moist and heated air is favorable 
to the rapid decay of vegetable matter, and this takes 
place in the scraps of dough and refuse flour which collect 
in the hollow sides and beneath the kneading troughs. 
Moreover, when the loaf is brought out of the oven into 
a foul bakery, its surface is exposed to any germ disease 
that may be at hand." 

"In thirty shops water closets were found in either 
the work or store room; they were in varying degrees 
of cleanliness, some of them being untrapped and filthy 
in the extreme." 

"Forty-six shops were reported which had sewage 
pipes in the work or store room. Of this number, sixteen 
were noted as being in a bad condition and a menace to 
health and clean products." 

"In three shops it was found that the employees slept 
in the shop after working hours were over." 

The securing of the above investigation was a strong 
move on the part of the bakers' unions of the State. In 
the fall of 1896 they drew up a bill for a bakeshop law 
and presented it to the Connecticut Branch of the Amer- 
ican Federation of Labor, then in convention, for its 
consideration. The legislative committee of the Federa- 
tion was instructed by the convention to secure the pas- 
sage of this bill. The bill was published and its passage 



7oi] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 289 

advocated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1896.^^ 
Besides providing for the regulation and sanitation of the 
bakeshops, the bill provided for a ten-hour day with six 
work days a week. 

This bill was introduced in the legislature of 1897 and 
referred to the Committee on Public Health and Safety. 
The history of the bill in the legislature is described in 
the report of the Annual Convention of the Connecticut 
Branch of the American Federation of Labor of 1897 as 
follows : 

"At the hearing ... the proprietors of nearly all 
the principal bakeries of the state, who were thoroughly 
organized, appeared with counsel before the committee, 
and made a desperate fight against its passage, and their 
lawyer was a daily visitor at the capitol for several weeks 
lobbying against the bill. . . . The Bakers' Unions 
were also represented at the hearings by counsel. . . . 
About fifty journeymen bakers, members of unions, also 
appeared at the hearings, ... in support of the bill, 
and the evidence presented by them on the filthy and 
unsanitary condition of the bakeshops was disgusting in 
the extreme. ..." 

After several weeks the committee reported a substi- 
tute bill. This substitute was very unsatisfactory to the 
bakers' unions, and their representatives offered four 
amendments to it. These were accepted and the bill 
passed. The provisions of the act (1897, ch. 174) are 
as follows: 

"Every building, room or place, used in or in connec- 
tion with the manufacture for sale of any article of food 
composed wholly or in part of flour or meal from cereals, 
shall be known under this act as a 'bakeshop.' " 

"Every bakeshop shall be properly drained, plumbed, 
ventilated and kept in a clean and sanitary condition, and 
conducted with proper regard to the health of the opera- 
tives and the production of wholesome food." 



Report of Bureau, p. 268. 



290 American Economic Association [702 

''Every bakeshop shall be provided with a proper wash- 
room and water closet or water closets, apart from the 
bakeroom or rooms where the manufacturing of such 
food products is conducted, and no water closet, earth 
closet or privy shall be within the bakeroom of any 
bakery." 

"The sleeping places for persons employed in a bake- 
shop shall be kept separate from the room or rooms 
where flour or meal food products are manufactured or 
stored." 

"The factory inspector shall examine all bakeshops as 
frequently as may be necessary . . . and shall . . . 
report in writing to the local health officer . . . every 
bakeshop . . . not found kept and conducted as herein 
provided; and such health officer shall thereupon investi- 
gate . . . such unsanitary conditions so reported to 
him and if found to exist, shall cause the same to be 
removed. ..." 

When, in 1897, the factory inspectors began to inspect 
the bakeries, they found their condition fully as bad as 
it had been reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
in 1896. Their orders mainly were for the cleaning up 
of filthy and unsanitary shops, the removal of water 
closets from the bakerooms, and the repairing of the 
plumbing. In 1898 only about half as many complaints 
were made to the health officer as in the year previous, 
and the orders in number and kind indicate that much 
better conditions existed. 

The inspections of 1897 ^^^ ^^9^ showed that the 
former bad conditions were due mainly to three causes : 
(i) Underground shops, many of which could not be 
kept well lighted or well ventilated and were liable to 
overflow from sewers and tide water; (2) the failure of 
landlords to keep rented buildings in proper repair; and 
(3) the filthy habits of the employees. In 1898 the fac- 
tory inspector recommended the gradual abolishment of 
low, cellar shops, and in 1899 (ch. 140) the following 
amendment was passed : 



703] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 291 

The owner of a building used as a bakeshop shall cause 
it to be properly drained, plumbed, lighted, and venti- 
lated; and the occupant shall keep it in a clean and sani- 
tary condition. 2^ 

"No cellar not now used as a bakery shall be hereafter 
used and occupied as a bakery, and a cellar heretofore so 
used and occupied shall, when once closed, not be re- 
opened for the purpose of use as a bakery. Every room 
hereafter used for the manufacture of flour or meal food 
shall be at least eight feet in height." 

"The word cellar as used in this act shall be construed 
to mean any room wholly or in part underground, except 
such rooms or basements as shall, in the judgment of the 
inspector of factories, be properly drained, plumbed, 
Hghted and ventilated." 

It was the intention by this amendment gradually to 
close the cellar shops, but the owners usually were care- 
ful, after the amendment was passed, to keep them run- 
ning all the time. In 1900 the factory inspector, in his 
report, complained that in cases where shops had been 
closed for months and then reopened the local health 
officer, when notified, apparently did nothing to enforce 
the law and the shops were allowed to run. The inspector 
asked that the law be changed and this was done in 1901. 

The act of 1901 (ch. 83), with its amendment of 1905, 
is the present law (G. S. 1902, sees. 2569-2572). Its 
provisions are as follows: 

"All buildings or rooms occupied as biscuit, bread or 
cake bakeries shall be drained and plumbed in a manner 
conducive to the proper healthful and sanitary condition 

^ "This bill was drawn by Mr. Parker, special agent of the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics. Introduced in the House by Mr. Freeman, of 
Hartford, and referred to the Committee on Public Health and 
Safety. At the public hearing ... it was advocated by Factory 
Inspector McLean, Mr. W. W. Ives, Chief Clerk of the Labor 
Bureau, Jacob Reiss, of New Haven, Secretary of the Connecticut 
Branch of the Bakers' and Confectioners' Union, and others." — 
Report Annual Convention Connecticut Branch American Federation 
CI Labor, 1899. 



292 American Economic Association [704 

thereof, and constructed with air shafts and windows or 
ventilating pipes, sufficient to insure ventilation, as the 
inspector of factories shall direct; and no cellar or base- 
ment, not now used as a bakery, shall hereafter be used 
and occupied as a bakery, and a cellar heretofore used as 
a bakery shall, when once closed, not be reopened for use 
as a bakery." 

"Every such bakery shall be provided with a proper 
wash room and water closet or closets, apart from the 
bake room or rooms where the manufacturing of such 
food products is conducted; and no water closet, earth 
closet, privy, or ash pit shall be within or communicate 
directly with a bake shop." 

''Every room used for the manufacture of flour or 
meal food shall be at least eight feet in height; and the 
side walls of such rooms shall be plastered or wainscoted, 
the ceiling plastered or ceiled with lumber or metal, and, 
if required by the inspector of factories, shall be white- 
washed at least once in three months; the furniture and 
utensils of such room shall be so arranged as to be easily 
moved in order that the furniture and floor may at all 
times be kept in proper healthful sanitary condition." 

"The manufactured flour or meal food products shall 
be kept in perfectly dry and airy rooms, so arranged that 
the floors, shelves, and all other facilities for storing the 
same can be easily and perfectly cleaned." 

"The sleeping places for persons employed in a bakery 
shall be kept separate from the room or rooms where 
flour or meal food products are manufactured or stored." 

"AFTER an inspection of a bakery HAS been made by 
the inspector of factories and it is found to conform to 
the provisions of this act, said inspector may issue a 
certificate to the owner or operator of such bakery that it 
is conducted in compliance with all the provisions of 
this act; ..." 

"The owner, agent, or lessee of any property affected 
by the provisions of this act, shall, within thirty days 
after the service of notice upon him of an order issued 
by the inspector of factories requiring any alterations to 
be made in or upon such premises, comply therewith, or 
cease to use or allow the use of such premises as a bake- 
shop; ..." 



705 J Labor Legislation of Connecticut 293 

''Any person who violates the provisions of this act or 
refuses to comply with any requirement of the inspector 
of factories, as provided herein, shall be guilty of a mis- 
demeanor, and . . . shall be fined not less than twenty 
nor more than fifty dollars for the first offense; shall be 
fined not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dol- 
lars or imprisonment not more than ten days for the 
second offense ; and shall be fined not less than two hun- 
dred dollars and imprisoned not more than thirty days 
for the third offense." 

"No employer shall require, permit or suffer any per- 
son to work in his bake shop who is affected with pul- 
monary tuberculosis, or with scrofulous diseases, or with 
any venereal diseases, or with any communicable skin 
affection, and every employer is hereby required to main- 
tain himself and his employees in a clean and a sanitary 
condition while engaged in the manufacture, handling or 
sale of such food products." 

"Chapter CLXXIV of the public acts of 1897 and 
chapter 140 of the public acts of 1899 ^^^ hereby re- 
pealed." 

In this act of 1901 the provision requiring the factory 
inspector to report cases of violation to the local health 
officer was wisely omitted. The conditions of the bake- 
shops improved gradually under the new law. The in- 
spector required many of the shops to be whitewashed 
and cleaned up generally. However, the bakeshop law 
had failed in one of the things expected of it — the closing 
up of cellar shops. As will be shown later the number 
of such shops had actually increased since the first law 
was passed in 1897. There was much difference of 
opinion as to what, under the law, constituted a legal 
closing of a bakeshop, and as to what was a "cellar" and 
what a "basement." In his reports for 1903 and 1904 
the factory inspector recommended that an amendment be 
passed defining clearly what should constitute a legal 
closing, and what a "cellar" and what a "basement." 
The amendment of 1905 (ch. 13) followed. The new 
provisions in this amendment are as follows : 



294 American Economic Association [706 

If the factory inspector finds on inspection that a bake- 
shop is conducted in compliance with the law, he shall 
issue a certificate to that effect, which certificate shall be 
kept posted in a conspicuous place in the bakery. 

"No room or rooms either wholly or partly under- 
ground, not now used as a bakery, shall hereafter be used 
as a bakery. No room or rooms wholly or partly under- 
ground, now used as a bakery, which shall hereafter be 
closed, shall be again used as a bakery." 

''No room or rooms wholly or partly underground 
which shall have been closed on account of fire, attach- 
ments, observance of religious ceremonies, or quarantine 
regulations, shall be deemed to be closed within the mean- 
ing of this act." 

"A bakeshop shall be deemed to be closed whenever, 
for any reason except those specified in section three, the 
business of baking for the public shall be suspended 
therein." 

The following table, prepared for the writer by the 
Factory Inspection Department,^^ shows roughly the 
changes effected by the enforcement of the different laws 
concerning bakeries: 



Bakeries of Connecticut. 



In Which 



yr Number Basement Above In Good Changes Were 

^^^ Inspected or Cellar Ground Condition Ordered 

1897 254 152 102 135 119 

1898 211 114 97 152 59 

1899 214 129 85 114 100 

1900 291 147 144 192 99 

1901 331 158 173 212 119 

1902 343 146 197 237 106 

1903 254 105 149 195 59 

1904 401 150 251 277 124 

1905 381 118 263 293 88 

The above table indicates that in some years all the 
bakeries were not inspected. The number inspected varies 
too largely between successive years to be attributed 
wholly to the real change in the number of bakeries in 

^Also published in the Factory Inspector's Report of 1905, p. 14. 



707] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 295 

operation in those years. For example, note the marked 
difference in the numbers between the years 1897 and 
1898, 1899 and 1900, and 1903 and 1904. Probably the 
number of basement and cellar bakeries inspected does 
not correspond either with the actual number in opera- 
tion. Without knowing the numbers in operation in 
the successive years it is impossible to measure correctly 
the decline in the number of such bakeries. In 1897, 152 
such shops were inspected; and in 1904 there were still 
150. 

In the percentage of the bakeries inspected in which 
changes were ordered there has been a gradual decline. 
In 1897 changes were ordered in 47 per cent, of the shops 
inspected, while in 1905 changes were ordered in only 
23 per cent, of the shops inspected. In other words, in 
1897 only 53 per cent, of the shops were found to be in 
good condition, while in 1905 yy per cent, were in good 
condition. To appreciate properly the great change that 
has taken place in the condition of the bakeries one must 
consider the rapid decrease in the percentage of shops in 
which orders were given in connection with the higher 
standards set by the new laws. For example, in 1905 one- 
half of the orders were for changes (such as whitewish- 
ing the walls) that were not required under the law of 
1897. That is, according to the standards of 1897, 88 
per cent, of the bakeries were in good condition in 1905, 
as compared with 53 per cent, in the former year. 

The conditions in the bakeshops in Connecticut to-day, 
on the whole, are good. However, as some cooks still 
have dirty kitchens, so some bakers still have dirty shops. 
The worst conditions are still found in the cellar shops. 
Under the present law the number of such shops is de- 
creasing very slowly. It might be well to enact a law 
providing that all such shops should be closed at the end 
of ten years, or even sooner. The shops are inspected 
twice a year. 



296 American Economic Association [708 

IV. Enforcement and Effects of the Factory 
Inspection Laws. 

The foregoing discussions have shown that in many 
respects the factory acts have always been inadequate 
properly to deal with existing conditions in the factories. 
Nearly all of the laws were delayed until long after they 
were needed, and, when passed, often they were lacking 
in definiteness. Several of them did not provide properly 
for their enforcement by giving the inspector sufficient 
enforcing power. On many points where legislation was 
needed no law was enacted. 

All the factories of the State were not inspected each 
year until about 1896. The first inspector, in his report 
for 1888 (p. 6), says: 

"The appointment of a deputy was left to the judgment 
of the Inspector. None has been appointed, the fifteen 
hundred dollars appropriated for the purpose has not 
been drawn from the state treasury." 

Whether this failure to appoint a deputy was due to a 
desire to please the class that had held that an inspection 
department would be a needless drain on the treasury of 
the State, by leaving the fifteen hundred dollars in the 
treasury, is not known; certain it is that there was suffi- 
cient work to keep two inspectors busy. In 1890 the 
inspector says :^^ 

"It is impossible for one inspector to make an annual 
examination of all the buildings and places where ma- 
chinery is in use. . . . Within a period of seventeen 
months, I have inspected 744 manufactories. . . . 
There are still many factories which have not been visited 
but they will be reached as rapidly as possible during the 
coming months." 

The report for 1895 (p. 6) says: 

"The state of Connecticut, though small in area, con- 
tains 1 80 1 factories and workshops in which over five 



" Report, p. 10. 



709] 



Labor Legislation of Connecticut 



297 



persons are employed, and in which power is used. It has 
been impossible to inspect them all in any one year." 

During the year in which the above statement was made 
only 1 09 1 factories were inspected in the ten months cov- 
ered by the report, and never before 1902 were as many 
as 1 80 1 factories inspected in one year. 

The following table shows the number of factories in- 
spected each year, the number of these that were in good 
condition, the number in which changes were ordered, 
the number of orders given, and the number of operatives 
in the places inspected : 

FACTORY INSPECTION IN CONNECTICUT— 1887-19052* 





No. of 


No. in 


No. in 


No. of 


No. of 
Operatives 
in Places 
Inspected 


Year 


Factories 


Good 


which Changes 


Orders 




Inspected 


Condition 


were Ordered 


Given 


1887 (6 mos.) 


250 


164 


86 






1888^ 












1889 (5 mos.) 


255 


128 


127 


206 


42,098 


1890 


489 


197 


292 


710 


63,141 


1891 


435 


193 


242 


579 


55,922 


1892 


414 


221 


193 


482 


51,996 


1893 


476 


220 


256 


566 


68,098 


1894 


1,154 


379 


775 


1,789 


93,428 


1895 (10 mos.) 


1,091 


600 


491 


918 


93,467 


1896 


1,461 


1,002 


459 


769 


135,909 


1897 


1,426 


1,094 


332 


463 


131,700 


1898 


1,425 


1,223 


202 


270 


132,180 


1899 


1,466 


1,227 


239 


328 


151,125 


1900 


1,485 


1,125 


360 


489 


152,409 


1901 


1,313 


1,066 


247 


329 


124,744 


1902 


1,801 


1,448 


353 


468 


187,854 


1903 


1,690 


1,427 


263 


358 


187,585 


1904 


1,916 


1,572 


344 


447 


193,025 


1905 


1,912 


1,653 


259 


346 


196,499 



The above table, in addition to showing that for the 
first nine years after the establishment of an inspection 

^* Part of the material for this table was found in the reports of the fact 
ory inspector, 1887-1905 ; for the balance I am indebted to the factory 
inspector. 

'^ The figures for 1888 are not given in such a form that they can be in- 
cluded in the table. In sixteen months in 1887 and 1888, 1,973 mills were 
inspected and 813 changes were ordered. Report Conn. Factory Inspector, 
1888, p. 14. 



298 American Economic Association [710 

department only a part of the factories were inspected, 
shows that the proportion of factories found in good 
condition has increased gradually from fifty per cent, in 
1888 to eighty-six per cent, in 1905 — and this notwith- 
standing the fact that the standards have been raised 
materially since 1888 by the enactment of a number of 
new laws. The large proportion of the factories in which 
changes were ordered in 1894 is very likely due to the 
passage of new laws in 1893. The relative number of 
orders given has likewise declined gradually. The num- 
ber of operatives employed in the places inspected is the 
number of persons directly protected and benefited by the 
factory laws and their enforcement. This number has 
increased very rapidly. 

During the first years after the establishment of the 
department, the factory inspection laws were not rigidly 
enforced. This was due partly to the desire, on the part 
of the inspector, to overcome the existing opposition to 
the bureau, and partly to the inability of one man to 
cover the field. The thoroughness and efficiency of the 
inspection has been improving gradually. At present there 
are three deputy inspectors, in addition to the chief in- 
spector .'^^ Although the inspection of bakeshops and ele- 
vators, and the changes required by new laws, have in- 
creased vastly the work of the department, the four 

^ In 1907, mainly through the efforts of the women's clubs of the 
State, a law (ch. 241) was passed which provides that "The factory 
inspector shall . . . appoint ... on the recommendation of an 
advisory commission of three women appointed by the governor 
... a female deputy inspector ..." who "shall inquire into 
the enforcement of the laws regulating the employment of women 
and girls in any manufacturing, mechanical, or mercantile establish- 
ment, investigate the conditions relating to the health and welfare of 
women and girls employed in such establishments, and report thereon 
to the factory inspector; provided, however, that she shall have no 
power or authority over and no duty concerning any machinery, 
appliances, or fixtures except sanitary fixtures." 



7ii] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 299 

inspectors are able to cover the field fairly well. They 
inspect all manufactories employing over five persons and 
using power. Their custom is to inspect elevators three 
times, bakeshops twice, and factories once a year. The 
inspection, on the whole, is fairly efficient and careful, but 
there are some factories in the State that are not up to the 
standards set by the law, nor to the standards to which 
the best factories in the same line of industry conform. 
There is room for a more rigid inspection and a more 
careful enforcement of the law in these factories. 

According to the reports of the factory inspector, the 
manufacturers of the State, with a few exceptions, al- 
ways have been in hearty sympathy with the work of the 
department. For the first few years, particularly, these 
statements were doubtless over-optimistic. The manu- 
facturers opposed strongly the passage of the law, and 
the writer has been informed that during the first few 
years some of them opposed, rather than encouraged, the 
inspector in his work. They have now become accus- 
tomed to the law and its enforcement, and have overcome 
their first prejudice and fear against it; yet it is the fac- 
tory operatives, and not the factory owners, who insist 
most strongly on the careful enforcement of the factory 
inspection laws. 

The factory legislation of Connecticut is inadequate. 
It is far less complete than is the factory legislation of 
New York or Massachusetts. There are no laws pro- 
viding that stairs shall be screened, or that doors shall 
open outwardly, or that automatic belt shifters shall be 
provided, or that separate water closets shall be provided 
for the different sexes, or that dressing rooms shall be 
provided where needed. There are no provisions against 
overcrowding, or against children being permitted to 
operate dangerous machinery, or against women or chil- 



300 American Economic Association [712 

dren being employed at night. Every factory inspector 
has urged the passage of a law requiring that accidents 
be reported to the factory inspection department, and 
numerous bills to this effect have been before the legisla- 
ture, but none of them has passed. The employers have 
opposed such a law for fear that it would place them at a 
disadvantage in damage suits for injury to their em- 
ployees. Too often they have sought to keep accidents 
quiet. This is a short-sighted policy. Were every serious 
accident, with its cause, carefully reported to the factory 
inspector, he would thereby be aided in devising ways 
and means to prevent further accidents from the same 
piece of machinery or from similar machinery in other 
factories. Thus by the prompt and careful reporting of 
present accidents the number and possibility of accidents 
in the future would be greatly diminished. There would 
be fewer damage suits and both employers and employees 
would be gainers. 



CHAPTER XIL 

THE CONNECTICUT BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. 

The first bill for a law establishing a Bureau of Labor 
Statistics was introduced in the legislature of 1873. 
There was no active opposition to the bill. The people 
generally were in favor of the establishment of such a 
bureau/ and the measure was said to have the endorse- 
ment of leading men in both the political parties of the 
State. ^ However, there was some fear of the powers the 
proposed law would give the Commissioner of the Bu- 
reau to send for persons and papers and subpoena wit- 
nesses, and in the House a motion to amend the bill by 
striking out this part was carried.^ But the bill, as finally 
passed, gave the Commissioner these powers. The debate 
on the bill was short and the subject did not create much 
interest or call forth much comment from the newspapers. 
The law evidently was not considered a very important 
one. It provides (1873, ^h. 82) : 

"That the governor of the state biennially shall appoint 
a chief and a deputy, who together shall constitute a 
bureau of labor statistics. 

The duties of the bureau shall be to collect statistics 
relating to labor in the state, and to report them, annually, 
to the legislature. 

''The said bureau shall have power to send for persons 
and papers, to examine witnesses under oath, to take de- 
positions, and cause them to be taken by others by law 
authorized to take depositions; and said bureau may 

^ Report Conn. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1889, p. 24. 

^New Haven Register, July 11, 1873, 

'Ibid. 

713] 301 



302 American Economic Association [714 

depute any indifferent person to serve subpoenas upon 
witnesses, who may be paid the same fees as witnesses 
before the superior court." 

The salary of the chief shall be eighteen hundred dol- 
lars per year, and of the deputy twelve hundred dollars 
per year, and one thousand dollars per year shall be al- 
lowed for office rent, office fixtures, blank books, printing, 
stationery, postage, expenses of witnesses, depositions, 
and traveling expenses. 

This law, practically, was very weak. It gave the 
Commissioner of the Bureau authority to do many things, 
and then by allowing him only one thousand dollars a 
year for rent, office expenses, expenses and fees of wit- 
nesses, depositions and traveling expenses, made it im- 
possible for him to carry on any thorough investigations. 
During the first year, 1874, the one clerk of the Bureau 
was paid by the chief at his own expense, the State re- 
ceiving his clerical services gratuitously. During the two 
years of its existence the Bureau, because of a lack of 
funds, could only send out circulars and base its reports 
on the scattered and voluntary answers received. Some- 
times the persons to whom these circulars were sent 
looked upon the inquiries of the Bureau into the details 
of their business as an invasion of their private rights and 
did not welcome the interrogations.^ The reports were, 
admittedly, incomplete and unsatisfactory. The report 
of 1874 contained 208 pages and dealt in a cursory man- 
ner with most of the questions that affect the laboring 
people. Hours of labor, child labor, agriculture, cost of 
living, manufacturing industries, commerce and transpor- 
tation, and miscellaneous were the principal subjects 
treated. The report of 1875 contained 151 pages. The 
chief subjects treated were the employment and education 
of children, general condition of the working people, 
hours of labor, agricultural returns, manufacturing in- 

* Report Conn. Bureau Labor Statistics, 1874, pp. 10 and 11. 



715] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 303 

dustries and the sanitary and vital statistics in them, cost 
of living, and strikes. The treatment of these subjects 
was inadequate as the statistics were based upon insuffi- 
cient data. 

In the two years of its existence the Bureau had not 
given satisfaction and in 1875 (ch. 89) it was abolished. 
What part politics and prejudice had in causing it to be 
abolished the writer has been unable to learn, but they 
seem to have had their influence.^ 

In 1883 there was another attempt to pass a law estab- 
lishing a Bureau of Labor Statistics, but the bill (H. B. 
289) was unfavorably reported and was rejected by both 
houses. In 1885 the effort to secure such a law was 
renewed by the laboring classes, the Knights of Labor 
taking a prominent part in the movement. The bill intro- 
duced this year (H. B. 117) made it the duty of the com- 
missioner to collect information concerning labor, wages, 
savings, the age, sex and nationality of the laborers, acci- 
dents, sanitary conditions, rents, cost of living, manufac- 
turing, etc., and gave him authority to examine witnesses 
and to enforce their attendance. The committee on judi- 
ciary, to which the bill was referred, recommended its 
rejection and the passage of a substitute. The House 
passed the substitute, but the Senate rejected it and asked 
for a conference. The committee on conference reported 
an amendment. This amendment was to strike out the 
original bill and to insert the present law. The amend- 
ment, with a few changes, was passed by both houses, the 
vote being as follows: Number voting, 132; necessary 
for adoption, 67; voting yes, 68; voting no, 64. Thus 
the amendment was carried by a margin of only one vote. 
The substitute bill was then passed as amended.^ 



" See New Haven Evening Register, April 23, 18 
" Journal of the House of Representatives, 1885. 



304 American Economic Association [716 

The bill that passed was a compromise measure. The 
strength of the original bill had been sacrificed to the 
demands of those who stood for personal liberty and 
against State inquisition into private affairs. The amend- 
ment robbed the Commissioner of the Bureau of the 
power, given him by the original bill, to examine wit- 
nesses and require their attendance for that purpose. The 
principal provisions of the law (1885, ch. 119) are as 
follows : 

There shall be a bureau of labor statistics to be under 
the control and management of a commissioner, appointed 
by the governor for a term of four years. His salary 
shall be two thousand dollars per annum, and postage, 
stationery and office expenses. He may appoint one 
clerk of the bureau. He "shall collect information upon 
the subject of labor, its relation to capital, the hours of 
labor and the earnings of laboring men and women, and 
the means of promoting their material, social, intellec- 
tual, and moral prosperity; but for this purpose persons 
shall not be required to leave the vicinity of their resi- 
dences or places of business." 

The commissioner shall report to the governor an- 
nually, and such report shall be printed for the use of 
the general assembly. 

This law gives the commissioner no authority. He 
cannot compel the attendance of witnesses for examina- 
tion, or the production of books and papers, and he is 
given no authority to enter their places of business to seek 
the information at first hand. On this point Commis- 
sioner Hadley, in the first report of the Bureau in 1885 
(p. no), says: 

''Nor was it the intention of the law that the bulk of 
information should be collected by personal inquiry. It 
was specially provided that no persons should be required 
to leave their residences or places of business to communi- 
cate with the Commissioner, and the provision for travel- 
ing expenses was stricken out of the act, — thus arranging 



717] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 305 

that the facts should not come to the commissioner, and 
hinting that the commissioner should not go to the facts." 

In 1886 (ch. no) the commissioner was authorized 
to * 'employ from time to time special agents to assist him 
in his investigations." In 1887 (ch. 92) it was provided 
that the traveling expenses of the commissioner should 
be paid by the State, and that the State should print 
annually five thousand copies of the report of the bureau. 
A law of 1889 (ch. 177) increased the salary of the 
commissioner to three thousand dollars and the necessary 
office expenses of the bureau, and the traveling expenses 
of the commissioner and his assistants. In 1899 (ch. 
197), however, the salary of the commissioner was re- 
duced to two thousand five hundred dollars. (The laws 
concerning this department are found in the revision of 
1902, sections 4601-4607). 

The work of the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been 
unsatisfactory. Because of a lack of authority the inves- 
tigations, necessarily, have been imperfect. They have 
never extended to all the industries of the State, and, in 
the industries reached, information has been secured only 
from those establishments that have voluntarily given it. 
The information in regard to the conditions of the labor- 
ing classes often has been secured through organized 
laborers. The statistics compiled from this information, 
therefore, often are not only incomplete, but are not even 
accurately representative. When used they must always 
be given with an apology and an explanation. 

The manner of presenting the results of the investiga- 
tions has not been the best. Often, in the reports, long, 
voluminous, and detailed tables are resorted to. No stu- 
dent, much less a manufacturer or a working man, will 
wade through these long tables. They are practically 
worthless and should be omitted; but, unfortunately, the 
present tendency is in the opposite direction. Were only 



3o6 American Economic Association [718 

the tables which show the final results of any particular 
statistical investigation included it would be sufficient, 
but in the reports of the last few years'^ each of these has 
been preceded by from forty to fifty pages of detailed 
tables, which only serve to ''pad" the reports, confuse 
the reader, increase the printing bill, and show that much 
clerical work was gone through to arrive at the results 
given in the final table. 

No attempt will be made to analyze the separate re- 
ports. The two issued by the first bureau already have 
been referred to. The first report of the present bureau, 
that of 1885, is similar to them in that it is based on the 
returns from a comparatively small number of circulars. 
It deals briefly with most of the problems that affected 
the conditions of the laboring classes at the time. This 
report was intended to give only a general survey of the 
field and to be introductory to the future work of the 
bureau. As such it is as satisfactory as could be ex- 
pected with the time, means, and authority given the com- 
missioner. The report of 1886 was devoted mainly to 
an investigation of the hours of labor and the payment 
of wages. This report and the report of 1885 by the 
same commissioner^ are unequalled by any of the later 
reports for clear economic reasoning upon the subjects 
discussed. 

The reports of the bureau from 1887 to 1891 deal with 
such subjects as labor organizations, strikes and lock- 
outs, manufactures, wages, agriculture, the secret ballot, 
hours of labor, child labor, the fisheries industry, street 
railways, and the adjustment of labor disputes. Since 
1 89 1 the subjects that have occupied the chief attention 
of the bureau are manufactures and labor organizations. 



'The Report for 1905 was not published when the above was 
written. 

* Arthur T. Hadley, now President of Yale University. 



719] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 307 

Other subjects that are discussed in these reports are 
hours of labor, child labor, industrial education, building 
and loan associations, strikes and lockouts, poor relief, 
taxation, municipal ownership, and free public employ- 
ment bureaus. 

The range of subjects treated has been broad enough; 
but the treatment given such subjects as taxation, and 
municipal ownership was not such as to have been of 
general interest to workingmen, and probably a different 
treatment would have been more satisfactory and attrac- 
tive to employers, students, and legislators. We need but 
mention the fact that in the report of 1891, 1,439 pages 
were devoted to the subject of ''Fraternal Mutual Benefit 
Societies." 

It is doubtful whether the reports of the bureau ever 
have been read extensively by the laboring classes and 
their employers, and it is most probable that they have 
not been read by a large number of others. At present 
several thousand copies of the report are distributed in 
the State annually, but as the circulation is in a way a 
forced one it is difficult to determine how much of a real 
demand there is for them. The present method of dis- 
tributing the reports is to send a large number of them to 
an agent in each town for distribution, and cards of which 
the following is a copy, to citizens of the town : 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
Hartford. 
Dear Sir: — 

A copy of the report of this Bureau will be delivered to 

you through the kindness of Mr 

of your town. Please call upon him for it. 



Commissioner. 

The bureau has done its best work in a few special 
investigations — such as those of hours of labor, payment 



3o8 American Economic Association [720 

of wages, bakeries, and child labor — and in its efforts to 
protect alien laborers, and its management of the free 
public employment bureaus. The bureau has cost the 
State over seven thousand dollars a year since its es- 
tablishment. It has never given full satisfaction and 
in 1899 there was a bill introduced in the legislature 
(H. B. 600) to abolish it. This bill was drafted by a 
committee appointed by the General Assembly in 1897 
to investigate the receipts and expenditures of the State. 
It was opposed strongly by the labor organizations. 
They presented "eighty-seven petitions, from as many 
labor organizations," in support of the bureau, and their 
leading men appeared in opposition to the bill.^ It was 
rejected by both houses. 

While the Bureau of Labor Statistics exerted a strong 
influence in securing the passage of such labor measures 
as the law increasing the age limit for child labor, the 
laws for the protection of alien and contract laborers, the 
law establishing free public employment bureaus, and the 
law providing for the inspection of bakeries; and while, 
doubtless, it has exerted a general influence that has been 
beneficial to the laboring classes ; it has not accomplished 
what a properly constituted bureau with sufficient legal 
powers could have accomplished; and, as we have seen, 
it actually opposed two labor measures which have been 
among the most beneficial to the laboring classes of any 
that have been passed, — the weekly payment law, and the 
law providing for the inspection of factories. 

* Report Annual Convention Connecticut Branch American Fed- 
eration of Labor, 1899. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 

In the previous chapters we have been tracing the 
history of the separate laws in detail. May we not, from 
our present vantage point, look back over this mass of 
legislation and, unhampered by particular laws or sub- 
jects, discover in it some general characteristics and 
some general movements and tendencies? This will be 
the purpose of this chapter. 

Labor legislation in Connecticut was long delayed. 
Many of the old laws of the colonial period extended far 
over into the industrial period — some of them, as the 
laws concerning slavery, even to the revision of 1866. 
The development of labor legislation was not so rapid 
as the development of the new industrial system. The 
people clung to their old laws long after they had adopted 
a new system of production. The commercial and eco- 
nomic instincts of the Connecticut Yankee led him to 
make the latter change, his boasted conservatism pre- 
vented his making the former one. Hence, in most cases, 
the legislation was wholly inadequate to meet the new 
conditions. On the whole, labor legislation in Connec- 
ticut has been ten years behind similar legislation in New 
York and Massachusetts. In many points, as in the fac- 
tory acts and in the employer's liability act, the legislation 
is still insufficient in amount. In other points the multi- 
plicity of the laws and their frequent change have been 
detrimental. 

Often the laws were passed at random. Sometimes 
they were copied in toto from the statutes of other States. 

721] 309 



3IO American Economic Association [722 

Seldom was there a thorough acquaintance with the con- 
ditions and needs to be met in Connecticut. This "cut 
and try" method of legislation has necessitated numerous 
and frequent amendments. Many of the laws, especially 
the early ones, were weakly and loosely constructed. 
Often no provision was made for their enforcement. In 
other cases the enforcing power was delegated to several 
local officers and was not exercised by any of them. The 
plan of depending on the local officers to enforce the laws 
is an old one of the colonial period. It is not in keeping 
with the present industrial development, and, in general, 
it has resulted in the laws being unenforced. There is 
still too great a distribution of powers and responsibili- 
ties. Too often, even at present, one officer investigates 
conditions, while to another is given the power to enforce 
the law in the premises. 

How came these laws to be enacted ? Was their enact- 
ment due to any organized efforts or movement ? Before 
the "sixties" the forces that secured the enactment of the 
labor laws are hard to trace. There was little organized 
effort to secure labor legislation. Such legislation was 
small in amount and usually, it seems, was not due to a 
conscious effort by any party or organization. In the 
latter part of the "sixties," however, the labor organiza- 
tions began to participate in the politics of the State, and, 
in 1867, assisted in the election of governor. "The al- 
most entire Trades Unionist element took part in this 
movement through their membership in either the Eight 
Hour League, or the Labor League or Union." "Their 
campaigns were conducted under an eight hour issue. 
They were promised, if successful, an eight hour law. 
The dominant party did give them an eight hour law, 
but spoiled it for the laborers by adding a rider that it 
should not be obligatory if there was an agreement other- 



723] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 311 

wise."^ There was little further organized effort to 
secure labor legislation until the Knights of Labor en- 
tered the field. 

The Knights of Labor became prominent in legislative 
matters in 1885. "The legislature, 1885-86, had, within 
its membership, no less than thirty-seven who were mem- 
bers of the Knights of Labor."^ From that time to the 
present there has been an organized effort by the labor 
unions to secure the enactment of labor laws, and during 
this period our most important labor laws have been 
passed. The Knights of Labor were prominent in legis- 
lative matters from 1885 to 1889. During the legisla- 
tures of 1886 and 1887 they exerted a strong influence. 
They were increasing in numbers very rapidly, and their 
numbers in the State were greatly overestimated. Rep- 
resentative T. H. Kehoe, of the Legislature of 1886, and 
from 1885 to 1 89 1 Master Workman of the Knights of 
Labor for most of the State, gives it as his opinion that 
in 1886 there were not at any time over 8,000 good, stable 
members in their organization. Yet, at the time, they 
were estimated to have as many as 60,000 members in 
the State — 40,000 of them voters.^ 

In the legislature of 1886 the Knights of Labor intro- 
duced several labor bills. Some of these passed the 
House successfully but were defeated in the Senate. Only 
a few of them became laws. The following summer the 
Knights of Labor carried on an active agitation for the 
passage of these laws. Both the Democratic and Repub- 
Hcan parties became afraid of their growing political 
power and began bidding for the labor vote. In the New 
Haven Evening Register of July 29, 1886, we find the 
following : 



^ Conn. Bureau Labor Statistics, 1902, pp. 332, 347. 

^ Ibid., 1902, p. 346. 

* New Haven Evening Register, July 24, 1886, p. i. 



312 American Economic Association [724 

*'No doubt the Knights of Labor are doing a good 
work for their own advancement. They have forced both 
parties to recognize their demands, which have not been 
unjust. If they intend to control legislative offices they 
will probably succeed, for they will hold the balance of 
power in the next house."* 

The Knights of Labor took advantage of this fear of 
their political strength and made their demands on both 
the political parties. These demands were for labor leg- 
islation. The Democratic platform of 1886 seems to 
have been framed especially to catch the labor vote. It 
contained the following assertions and pledges : 

*'We . . . approve of laws that shall absolutely 
protect voters from intimidation and corruption by the 
knowledge of a secret ballot." 

. . . "The Democratic party denounces all that tends 
to degrade the laborer. . . . It is pledged to all meas- 
ures that are calculated to elevate, educate and improve 
his condition, and we hereby endorse the position taken 
by the representatives in the last legislature who upheld 
the ten-hour law, weekly payments, the restriction of 
child labor, and an absolutely secret ballot. To the pas- 
sage of these measures the Democratic party stands com- 
mitted. And we believe in giving to the true friends of 
labor the enforcement of all measures designed to benefit 
the wage earners."^ 

Representative Kehoe, of the legislature of 1886, and 
Master Workman of the Knights of Labor for most of 
the State from 1 885-1 891, says that the Knights of 
Labor secured the introduction of these labor planks in 
the Democratic platform of 1886, and then, in the legis- 
lature of 1887, by holding the Democratic members to 
these pledges, secured the labor legislation of that year. 
However this may be, it is certain that the labor laws of 

* James P. Pigott. See also New Haven Evening Register, 1886, 
Sept. 18, 20, 21, and Oct. 5, 11 and 12. 

■* Democratic Platform, adopted at Convention in Hartford, Sept. 
28, 1886. — New Haven Evening Register, Sept. 28, 1886. 



725] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 313 

1886 and 1887 were secured very largely through the 
efforts of the Knights of Labor. 

The labor laws secured mainly through the influence of 
the Knights of Labor were the law of 1885, re-establish- 
ing the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the child labor law 
of 1886, the law of 1886 prohibiting the discounting of 
wages for payment before the regular pay day, the fac- 
tory inspection act of 1887, the act of 1887 limiting the 
hours of labor of women and minors to ten a day and 
sixty a week, and the weekly payment law of 1887. 

Beginning with the year 1888 the Connecticut Branch 
of the American Federation of Labor has had a "legisla- 
tive committee" at every session of the General Assem- 
bly working for the passage of labor measures.^ They 
have introduced a large number of bills, and they and 
other representatives of organized labor have appeared 
before the Committee on Labor in support of these and 
other labor measures. The principal laws secured through 
their efforts are, the union label law of 1893, the law of 
1895 prohibiting the employment of any prisoner in the 
State in the manufacture of food, medicine, cigars or 
tobacco, etc., the act of 1895 establishing a State board 
of mediation and arbitration, the act of 1895 securing 
employees in their right to join labor unions, the act of 
1897 providing for the inspection of bakeries, the act of 
1897 prohibiting the blacklisting of employees by their 
employers, the employer's liability act of 1901, the bar- 
ber's license law of 1901, and the law of 1905 providing 



' "The 'workingmen' of Connecticut appear at every session of our 
General Assembly, advocating the passage of laws which they assert 
are for the betterment of their condition. The laws which have 
already been passed, such as those providing for factory inspection, 
clean bake-shops, limitation of the hours of labor, and weekly pay- 
ment of wages, are the result of concerted movement by the organ- 
ized labor of the State." — Report of Connecticut Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, 1898, p. 103. 



314 American Economic Association [726 

for toilet rooms in foundries. Largely to their efforts, 
also, were due the passage of the act of 1895 raising the 
minimum age for child labor to fourteen years, and the 
act of 1 90 1 establishing free public employment bureaus. 

Thus, since 1885, organized labor has been the chief 
factor in securing labor legislation, either by direct legis- 
lative campaigns or by agitation outside the legislature, 
or by both. It is safe to say that without the influence 
exerted by organized labor, few of the labor laws would 
have been passed when they were, and, probably, many 
of them never would have been passed. But in securing 
this legislation the labor unions have not always pursued 
a broad-minded policy. In their eagerness to better the 
welfare of their own members, too often they have lost 
sight of the general public welfare. The bills they have 
advocated often have been radical class measures. As a 
result many of them have failed entirely, while others, 
as the act of 1897 providing for the inspection of bakeries 
and containing a provision for a ten-hour day with six 
work days a week, have been shorn of their objectionable 
class features before being allowed to pass. A few of 
these class measures, as the act of 1895 prohibiting the 
manufacture of food, medicine, cigars, tobacco , etc., in 
the prisons of the State, and the barber's license law of 
1 90 1 have slipped through the legislature under the guise 
of public health ordinances. This narrowminded policy 
has been of doubtful advantage to organized labor. Dur- 
ing the last few years the labor organizations have not 
secured the passage of so many laws or exerted so strong 
an influence on legislation as they did in the "eighties." 
However, this has been due very largely to the fact that 
now there is no such crying need for legislation as then. 

In their agitation for labor legislation the labor organ- 
izations often have been opposed by the employers and 
rheir associations. The employers have defeated many 



727] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 315 

measures advocated by the labor organizations and in 
numerous other cases, as in the act creating a bureau of 
labor statistics, the employer's liability act, and the law 
against blacklisting of employees, they have succeeded in 
robbing the measures of much of their strength before 
they have been passed. 

What has been the effect of this labor legislation upon 
the condition of the working people? The early laws 
usually were not enforced and their results were small. 
The same is true of some of the later laws. Many of the 
later labor laws were passed after the movement for a 
change had begun, and their influence on that movement 
cannot be determined. In other cases, as in the child 
labor and weekly payment laws of 1886, the factory 
inspection laws of 1887 and later years, and the bakeshop 
law of 1897, the good effects of the laws stand out clearly. 
On the whole, the laws have been of great benefit to the 
laboring classes and have improved their condition and 
the conditions under which they work very materially. 

At present there is need for legislation upon some neg- 
lected subjects, but there is an even greater need for a 
careful revision of existing laws and their careful en- 
forcement. 



APPENDIX. 



INDEX TO THE LABOR LAWS OF CONNECTICUT. 

The following is an index to the laws discussed in the different 
chapters of this thesis : 

Chapter I. 
Child Labor. — Code of 1650; 1715; 1718; 1750; 1769; 1784; G. S. 
1795; 1813, ch. 2; G. S. 1808, Title zz\ G. S. 1821, Title 14, 
sees.' I & 2; G. S. 1821, Title 64, sees. 7 & 8; G. S. 1824, Title 
65, sees. 7 & 8; G. S. 1835, Title 13, sees, i & 2; G. S. 1835, 
Title 67, sees. 7 & 8; G. S. 1838, Title 13, sees, i & 2; G. S. 1838, 
Title 66, sees. 7 & 8 ; 1842, ch. 3 ; 1842, ch. 190 ; G. S. 1849, Title 
7, ch. 4, sees. 22 & 23 ; G. S. 1849, Title 7, ch. 4, sees. 25, 26, 27 ; 
G. S. 1849, Title 7, ch. 7, sees. 58 & 59; G. S. 1854, Title 7, ch. 4, 
sees. 22-27; G. S. 1854, Title 7, ch. 7, sees. 58 & 59; 1855, ch. 45; 
1856, ch. 39; G. S. 1866, Title 13, ch. 4, sees. 43-52; G. S. 1866, 
Title 13, ch. 6, sees. 99 & 100; 1867, ch. 124; 1869, ch. 115; 1871, 
ch. 52; 1872, ch. 77; G. S. 1875, Title 11, ch. i, sees. 1-7; G. S. 
1875, Title 14, ch. 6, sec. 9; 1877, ch. 112; 1880, ch. 17; 1880, 
ch. 2,7', 1882, ch. 80; 1884, ch. 99; 1885, ch. 69; 1885, ch. 90; 1886, 
ch. 124; 1887, ch. 23; 1887, ch. 145; 1887, ch. 146; G. S. 1888, 
sees. 1417, 1745, 1746, 1753, 1755, 2102-2109; 1893, ch. 59; 1893, 
ch. 227; 1895, ch. 118; 1895, ch. 134; 1895, ch. 210; 1899, ch. 19; 
1899, ch. 41; 1901, ch. no; G. S. 1902, sees. 1163, 2116-2121, 2147, 
2614, 2682, 4691, 4692, 4704-4707 ; 1903, ch. 75 ; 1903, ch. 29 ; 1905, 
ch. 36; 1905, ch. 115. 

Chapter II. 
Hours of Labor, — 1842, ch. 3, sec. 3 ; G. S. 1849, Title 7, ch. 4, sec. 
27; G. S. 1854, Title 7, ch. 4, sec. 27; 1855, ch. 45; 1856, ch. 39; 
G. S. 1866, Title 13, ch. 4, sees. 49-52 ; 1867, ch. 124 ; 1867, ch. Z7 ; 
G. S. 1875, Title 14, ch. 6, sees. 9, 10; 1887, ch. 62; G. S. 1888, 
sees. 1745, 1746; G. S. 1902, sees. 4691, 4692. 

Chapter III. 
The Employment Contract and the Employer's Liability. 
Influencing the Vote of an Employee. — 1867, ch. 152, sec. 2; 
G. S. 1875, Title 20, ch. 9, sec. 28; 1877, ch. 146, sec. 45; 

316 [728 



729] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 317 

G. S. 1888, sec. 276; G. S. 1902, sec. 1700. 
Notice of Intention to Leave Employment. — 1885, ch. 72; 1886, 

ch. 108; G. S. 1888, sec. 1748; G. S, 1902, sec. 4694. 
Joining Labor Unions. — 1899, ch. 170; G. S. 1902, sec. 1297. 
The "Padrone Law." — 1895, ch. 295; 1901, ch. 68; G. S. 1902, 

sees. 4607, 4698-4700. 
Importation of Laborers. — 1865, ch. 10; G. S. 1866, Title z6, 

sees. 1-4. 
The Employer's Liability. — 1901, ch. 155; G. S. 1902, sec. 4702. 

Chapter IV. 

The Laborer's Wages. 
Preferred Claim of Laborer. — 1828; 1853, ch. 11; G. S. 1854, 

Title 14, ch. 4, sec. 18; G. S. 1866, Title 20, ch. 5, sec. 109; 

1870, ch. 104; G. S. 1875, Title 18, ch. 11, sec. 17; 1876, ch. 61; 

1877, ch. 50; 1885, ch. no; G. S. 1888, sec. 514; G. S. 1902, 

sec. 271. 
Railroad Laborers' Wages Secured. — 1870, ch. Gy, G. S. 1875, 

Title 17, ch. 2, part 9, sec. 25 ; G. S. 1888, sec. 3470 ; G. S. 1902, 

sec. 3696. 
Assignment of Wages. — 1874, ch. 12; G. S. 1875, Title 19, ch. 2, 

sec. 38; 1876, ch. 25; 1878, ch. 4; G. S. 1888, sec. 1247; G. S. 

1902, sec. 836; 1905, ch. 78. 
Discounting Wages — 1886, ch. 109; G. S. 1888, sec. 1752; G. S. 

1902, sec. 4701. 

Exemption of Wages from Foreign Attachment. — 1838, ch. 30; 
G. S. 1838, ch. ^y, sec. i ; G. S. 1849, Title i, ch. 15, sec. 229; 
1850, ch. i; G. S. 1854, Title i, ch. 15, sec. 229; 1867, ch. 109; 
1869, ch. 83; 1872, ch. 7; G. S. 1875, Title 19, ch. 16, sec. 13; 
1880, ch. 81 ; 1882, ch. 59 ; 1883, ch. 55 ; 1887, ch. 132 ; 1887, ch. 
147; G. S. 1888, sec. 1231; 1895, ch. 342; G. S. 1902, sec. 909; 

1903, ch. 95 ; 1905, ch. 195. 

Weekly Payment of Wages.— 1887, ch. 67 ; G. S. 1888, sees. 1749- 
1751; G. S. 1902, sees. 4695-4697; 1886, ch. 130; G. S. 1888, sec. 
344; G. S. 1902, sec. 136. 

Mechanic's Lien.— 1836, ch. 76 ; 1838, ch. 41 ; G. S. 1838, Title 59, 
sees. 1-3; 1839, ch. 29; G. S. 1849, Title 30, sees. 1-6; 1849, ch. 
2>3; 1852, ch. 56; G. S. 1854, Title 30, sees. 1-4; 1855, ch. 76) 
1856, ch. 64; G. S. 1866, Title 38, sees. 1-6; 1867, ch. 100; 1871, 
ch. 137; 1872, ch. 7; 1874, ch. 7; G. S. 1875, Title 18, ch. 7, 
sees. 9-13, 18-21; 1875, ch. 15; 1876, ch, 33; 1879, ch. 43; 1881, 
ch. 148 ; 1885, ch. 25 ; G. S. 1888, sees. 77, 3018-3022, 3030, 3041- 
3044; 1895, ch. 50; 1895, ch. 143; 1897, ch. 54; 1899, ch. 121; 
1901, ch. 80; G. S. 1902, sees. 777, 1849, 4135-4140, 4160-4163, 
4148. 



31 8 American Economic Association [730 

Chapter V. 
Boycotting and Blacklisting. 
The Anti-Conspiracy Acts. — 1864, ch. 57; G. S. 1866, Title 12, 
ch. 6, sec. 122; G. S. 1875, Title 20, ch. 6, sec. 14; 1877, ch. 77', 
1878, ch. 92; G. S. 1888, sees. 1517, 1518; G. S. 1902, sec. 1296. 
Blacklisting.— 1897, ch, 184; G. S. 1902, sec. 1298. 

Chapter VI. 
Free Public Employment Bureaus. — 1901, ch. 100 ; G. S. 1902, sees. 
4608-4614; 1903, ch. ZZ', 1905, ch. 148. 

Chapter VII. 
Mediation and Arbitration. — 1895, ch. 239; G. S. 1902, sees. 4708- 
4713. 

Chapter VIII. 
The Union Label. — 1893, ch. 162; G. S. 1902, sees. 4907-4912. 

Chapter IX. 
The Barbers' License Law. — 1901, ch. 132; G. S. 1902, sees. 4671- 
4673, 481 1 ; 1903, ch. 130; 1905, ch. 189. 

Chapter X. 
Convict Labor} — 1827, ch. 27; 1836, ch. 48; G. S. 1849, Title 43, 
ch. I ; G. S. 1854, ch. 12, sec. 183 ; G. S. 1854, Title 43, ch. i, sees. 
4, 6, 9; G. S. 1866, Title 51, ch. i, sees. 5, 6, 10; G. S. 1875, 
Title 9, ch. I, sees. 3, 4, 8, 9; 1880, ch. 70; G. S. 1888, sees. 3341, 
3343, 3348, 3349, 4455; 1895, ch. 153; G. S. 1902, sees. 2900, 2901, 
2902, 2913, 2914. 

Chapter XI. 

The Factory Acts. 
The Factory Inspection Laws.— 1887, ch. 152; G. S. 1888, sees. 

2263-2272; 1889, ch. 173; 1889, ch. 225; 1893, ch. 204; 1893, ch. 

206; 1893, ch. 118; 1895, ch. 206; 1899, ch. 119; 1901, ch. 97; 

G. S. 1902, sees. 4514-4530; 1903, ch. 53; 1903, ch. 97; 1905, ch. 

140. 
Fire Escapes.— 1883, ch. 125; G. S. 1888, sees. 2645-2647; 1889, 

ch. 154; 1893, ch. 24; 1893, ch. 105; 1895, ch. 254; 1895, ch. 346; 

G. S. 1902, sees. 2628-2635. 
Seats for Female Employees.— 1893, ch. 77 ; G. S. 1902, sec. 4703. 
Health.— 1869; G. S. 1888, sec. i747; G- S. 1902, sec. 4693. 
Tenement House Workshops.— 1899, ch. 199; G. S. 1902, sees. 

4527-4530.' 
Bakeries.— 1897, ch. 174; 1899, ch. 140; 1901, ch. 83; G. S. 1902, 

sees. 2569-2572; 1905, ch. 13. 



Only the labor provisions are referred to. 



73 1] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 319 

Chapter XII. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. — 1873, ch. 32 ; G. S. 1875, Title 3, ch. i, 
part 15; 1875, ch. 89; 1885, ch. 119; 1886, ch. no; 1887, ch. 92; 
G. S. 1888, sees. 2944-2949, 3706; 1889, ch. 177; 1899, ch. 197; 
G. S. 1902, sees. 4601-4607. 

A DIGEST OF THE CHILD LABOR LAWS OF CONNECTICUT.^ 

Code of 1650. — Children and apprentices to be taught to read Eng- 
lish, and a knowledge of the capital laws, catechised in the 
principles of religion once a week, and brought up in some honest 
and lawful calling, labor or employment. 

1813, ch. 2. — Employers in factories to teach children reading, writ- 
ing and first four rules of arithmetic; to pay attention to their 
morals; and to cause them regularly to attend public worship. 

1842, ch. 3. — Child under fifteen not to be employed in any manu- 
facturing or other business, unless it has attended school three 
months of the twelve months next preceding the year in which 
employed. Penalty twenty-five dollars. Teacher's certificate suf- 
ficient evidence of such attendance. School visitors to enforce 
act. Child under fourteen not to be employed over ten hours a 
day in any cotton or woolen establishment. 

1855, ch. 45. — Ten hours in mechanical or manufacturing establish- 
ment a day's work in absence of a contract. Nine years the 
minimum age for employment of child in manufacturing or 
mechanical establishment. Minor under eighteen not to be em- 
ployed over eleven hours a day. Penalty, twenty dollars. 

1856, ch. 39. — Ten years minimum age for emplo3anent of child in 
manufacturing or mechanical estabUshment. Minor under eigh- 
teen not to be employed over twelve hours a day or sixty-nine 
hours a week. Penalty, twenty dollars. Constables and grand 
jurors to enforce. 

1867, ch. 124. — Minor under fifteen not to be employed over ten hours 
a day or fifty-eight hours a week in manufacturing or mechanical 
establishments. Penalty, fifty dollars for employer, ten dollars 
for parent. Constables and grand jurors to enforce. 

1869, ch. 115. — Child under fourteen not to be employed in any busi- 
ness unless it has attended school three months of the twelve 
next preceding the year in which employed. Penalty, one hun- 
dred dollars. State's attorneys and grand jurors to enforce. 
State board of education may appoint an agent to enforce the act. 

1871, ch. 52. — Parent or guardian of child between six and fourteen 
shall send it to school when discharged from labor for that 
purpose, unless excused because of bodily or mental condition, 

^Revisions are omitted— only original acts, amendments, and 
codifications being given. 



320 American Economic Association [732 

or the pecuniary necessities of parents. Penalty, five dollars. 

1872, ch. yy.^ — Children to be brought up in some honest and lawful 
calling or employment, and instructed in reading, writing, Eng- 
lish grammar, geography and arithmetic. Parents of child be- 
tween eight and fourteen shall send it to school three months 
each year, six weeks to be consecutive. Child under fourteen 
not to be employed in any business unless it has attended school 
three months of the twelve of the year preceding employment. 
Parents shall send a child between eight and fourteen to school 
when discharged for that purpose. Penalty, five dollars. En- 
forced by State's attorneys, grand jurors, school visitors, State 
Board of Education, selectmen. 

1877, ch. 112. — Amending G. S. 1875, Title 11, ch. i, sec. 2 (1872, ch. 
yy) to read "sixty days of the twelve months next preceding any 
month." 

1880, ch. 17. — Amending G. S. 1875, Title 11, ch. i, sec. i (1872, ch. 
yy), to read "sixty days in each consecutive twelve months." 

1880, ch. 2>7- — Parent of child under fourteen shall furnish employer 
certificate of school attendance, and employer shall keep it on file. 

1882, ch. 80.* — Parents shall bring up their children in some honest 
and lawful calHng or employment and instruct them in reading, 
writing, English grammar, geography, and arithmetic. Parent 
of child over eight and under fourteen shall send it to school 
twelve weeks or sixty school days in any consecutive twelve 
months, six weeks to be consecutive. Penalty, five dollars for 
each week's violation. No child under fourteen who has resided 
in the United States nine months shall be employed unless it has 
attended school twelve weeks or sixty school days of the twelve 
months preceding the month in which employed, nor unless six 
weeks of the attendance shall have been consecutive. Penalty, 
sixty dollars. Parent of a child under fourteen shall furnish 
employer certificate of school attendance and employer shall keep 
it on file. Penalty for false statement by parent, five dollars. 
Enforced by state's attorneys, grand jurors, school visitors, state 
board of education, selectmen, 

1884, ch. 99. — Exhibiting or using child under twelve as rope or wire 
walker, dancer, skater, beggar, peddler, gymnast, contortionist, 
rider, acrobat, etc., punishable by fine of two hundred and fifty 
dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both. 

1885, ch. 90.— Parent shall cause child over eight and under sixteen 
to attend public school while in session, or be taught elsewhere. 
Children under fourteen who have attended school twelve weeks 



^ Mainly a codification of existing laws. 

*This is mainly a compilation of the child labor and education 
laws at this time. 



733] Labor Legislation of Connecticut 321 

of the preceding twelve months, and children over fourteen shall 
be exempt from the requirement while at labor. Penalty, five 
dollars. 

1886, ch. 124. — No child under thirteen to be employed in any me- 
chanical, mercantile, or manufacturing establishment. Penalty, 
sixty dollars. Age certificate by town clerk or teacher of child 
(or by parent or guardian of child when there is no record of 
its age in office of town clerk and it has not attended school in 
the state) exempts employer from penalty. Penalty for false 
statement by parent or guardian, sixty dollars. State board of 
education, and the school visitors, boards of education and town 
committees of towns shall enforce the act, and for this purpose 
state board of education may appoint agents. 

1887, ch. 23. — Agents of state board of education (1886, ch. 124, sec. 
3) may enforce the school attendance laws. 

1887, ch. 62. — No minor under sixteen and no woman shall work 
over ten hours a day or sixty a week, except when the machinery 
is stopped for repairs, or for purpose of making short day for 
one day of week. Schedule of hours to be posted in each work 
room. 

1887, ch. 145. — Amending 1885, ch. 90, sec. 2, to read, children under 
thirteen who have attended school twenty-four weeks, and chil- 
dren between thirteen and fourteen who have attended school 
twelve weeks, of the preceding twelve months, and children over 
fourteen shall be exempt from school attendance requirement 
while employed. 

1893, ch. 59. — Child under sixteen not to have charge of an elevator. 
Penalty, not over twenty-five dollars. 

3893, ch. 227. — Child under sixteen who cannot read and write must 
attend evening school (in towns where there are such schools) 
twenty consecutive evenings each month and produce certificate 
of such attendance, to be employed in any manufacturing, mer- 
cantile or mechanical occupation. Penalty, fifty dollars. 

1895, ch. 210. — Child over fourteen and under sixteen who cannot 
read and write, to be employed in town where there is evening 
school, must produce every school month a certificate of eighteen 
consecutive evenings' attendance and be a regular attendant. 
Penalty, fifty dollars. State board of education to enforce the 
act. 

1895, ch. 118. — ^Law of 1886 (ch. 124) amended by raising minimum 
age for employment to fourteen. 

1895, ch. 134.— Amending G. S. 1888, ch. 131 (1887, ch. 145) by 
providing that children over fourteen need not attend school 
while it is in session, if employed, and that all under fourteen 
must attend. 



322 American Economic Association [734 

1899, ch. 19. — Amending 1887, ch. 145, as amended by 1895, ch. 134, 
to read, children over seven and under sixteen shall attend school 
while in session, but children over fourteen are exempt while 
employed. 

1899, ch. 41. — Child under fourteen not to be employed while school 
is in session. Penalty, twenty dollars. 

1901, ch. no. — Employer of any child under sixteen in any mechan- 
ical, mercantile or manufacturing establishment shall have certi- 
ficate that the child is over fourteen. Certificate to be signed by 
registrar of births, town clerk, teacher, or person having custody 
of school register. If child is foreign born and has not attended 
school in state parents or guardian shall have its age recorded 
by registrar of births. They shall take oath to date of its birth 
and furnish documentary evidence. Refusal or neglect to keep 
on file certificates, punishable by fine not exceeding one hundred 
dollars. Employer exempt from penalty of sixty dollars for 
employing child under fourteen if he has on file age certificate. 
Penalty for false statement by parent, twenty dollars. 

1903, ch. 29. — School officers may require a child over fourteen and 
under sixteen to attend school until they think he has sufficient 
education to leave school to work. 

1903, ch. 75. — If a child has not attended school in this state but was 
born in the United States, and no record of its birth can be ob- 
tained, or if record on school register one year is inconsistent 
with record of another year, the state board of education may 
investigate and may grant a certificate if they deside the child is 
over fourteen. 

1905, ch. 36. — Amending 1903, ch. 29, by giving the state board of 
education concurrent power with the local school officers under 
the act. 

1905, ch. 115. — Amending G. S. 1902, sec. 4705 (1901, ch. no, sees. 
1-3) by adding that "if a child was not born in the United States, 
the state board of education may investigate, and, if it appears 
that said child is over fourteen years of age, may grant a certifi- 
cate accordingly. ..." 



Timely Books on Public Problems 



RECENT ISSUES 



PRESIDENT NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER'S 

TRUE AND FALSE DEMOCRACY 

Clear and convincing arguments for the insistent choice of the best 

PROBLEMS and wisest to fill political office ; for fuller recognition of the fact that 

OF ETHICS, ^^^ individual who is not politically alert and honest is a corrupter of 

K'lC public opinion ; and of the bearings of his conviction that free institu- 

■^*^' tions depend upon the intelligence of the whole people. 

Cloth, xxii + III pp, i2ino. $i.oo net, by mail $1.07. 
PRESIDENT ARTHUR TWINING HADLEY'S 

STANDARDS OP PUBLIC MORALITY 

The Kennedy Lectures for igo6, before the School of Philanthropy 
PROBLEMS ^^'^ York City ; upon such subjects as the formation of public opin- 
OP FTHICS ^^'^ ' ^^^ ethics of trade and of corporate management ; the workings 
ur a. X niuo of ^m. political machinery ; and the political duiies of the citizen. 

Cloth, ix + 158 pp, i2mo. $1.00 net, by mail $1,10. 
MR. ALBERT SHAW'S 

POLITICAL PROBLEMS OP AMERICAN 
DEVELOPMENT 

Discusses particular problems in relation to their origin and to the 
pnr TTTPAT P^rts they play in the evolution of democratic society. It covers 
fULilll^AL, problems of sectionalism and unity; of immigration and race ; of the 
PROBLEMS use of the public domain ; of party machinery ; of railways and trusts; 

of money and the tariff : and finally of foreign relations. 

Published by the Columbia University Press. Cloth, 8vo, gilt top. 

MR, WILLIAM B. GUTHRIE'S 

SOCIALISM BEPORE THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 

PROBLEMS OF Discusses an important period in the history of the theory of socialism 
SOCL^L as to which it has been almost impossible hitherto to secure any ade- 

THEORY quate treatment. Cloth, xviii + 339 pp, izmo. $1.50 net. 

MR, ALFRED L. HUTCHINSON'S 

THE LIMIT OP WEALTH 

t>i?nRT t?T\/i^ Presents an imaginery condition of society (in 1Q42) when the govern- 
PROdLisMS inent shall have regulated every possible form of public labor and 
OF SOCIAL utility, and shall have accomplished vast improvements by diverting 

BETTERMENT *° ^^^ public good all fortunes in excess of a certain maximum limit. 
Cloth, xiii + 285 pp, lamo, $1.25 net, by mail $1.35. 

PROFESSOR JOHN R. COMMONS'S NEW BOOK 

RACES AND IMMIGRANTS IN AMERICA 

By JOHN R. COMMONS, Professor of Political Economy, University of Wisconsin, 
Cloth, xiii + 242 pp, i2mo, $1.50 net, by mail $1.62. 
" Not many of the writers who have essayed to instruct us on American immigration 
problems had the special equipment for the task possessed by Professor John R. Commons. 
He has long been a diligent and penetrating student of industrial conditions in this country, 
and particularly of the labor movement. His investigations in this latter field have brought 
him face to face with the situation that confronts the arriving immigrant, and he has been 
led to inquire into the varying abilities of different races to make use of the opportunities 
presented in this land for their advancement. The present volume, then, is a frank discus- 
sion of the difficulties and dangers arising from our open-door immigration policy, together 
with a full and fair statement of the " negro problem " in our Southern States. The work 
is based on a thoroughly scientific analysis of the racial components of our population. We 
do not recall another book of its size that presents so much important and essential informa- 
tion on this vital topic." — Review of Reviews. 

BY THE SAME AUTHOR 

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 

Second Edition 
With chapters on the Initiative, the Referendum and Primary Elections. 

Cloth, X -j- 369 pp, i2mo, $1,25 net, by mail $1.36. 



MR. FRANKLIN PIERCE in 

THE TARIFF AND THE TRUSTS 

Presents cogently the argument that since the present condition of the 

PROBLEMS OF tariff provides the opportunities for corporate exactions, the remedy 

TAXATION may most swiftly be applied to the evils of monopoly by tariff revision. 

Cloth, ix + 387 pp, i2mo, $1.50 net, by mail $1.62. 

MR. HENRY GEORGE, JR. 

THE MENACE OF PRIVILEGE 

»i?n-RT TrM«s CfP "^^* George's strong, clear and logical work ... is a book that 
01 A «« every young man and woman who loves the Republic should care- 

CLAbb fully read." Cloth, izrao, $1.50 net. (Postage 13c. ) 

MR. WILLIAM E. SMYTHE'S 

CONSTRUCTIVE DEMOCRACY 

"On the whole I regard 'Constructive Democracy' as the most im- 
PROBLEMS OF portant economic study since 'Progress and Poverty' — and much 
GROWTH more likely to bear the fruit of early accomplishment than was Henry 
George's work." — Charles A. Moody in "Out West," 

CM A, 450 pp.. S-t.Jo net. {Postage 13c.) 
DR. JOHN FARLIE'S 

THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION OP THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

i>K>nRT TTTvyr^m?^^ ^^ '^^ author of "Municipal Administration". "Any one, al- 
A^»*TMToa^ A most by a glance, may obtain the precise information on these mat- 
'fiAM ters that he may n^^A.''— Journal 0/ Education. 

^^^^ Cloth, 8vo, 274 PP- , -^^.oo net. 

MR. HENRY S. HAINES'S 

RESTRICTIVE RAILWAY LEGISLATION 

PROBLEMS OF "The work is exhaustive, up-to-date, well-written, and not at all 

RAILWAY technical."— 7%^ Evening Te.legraph, Philadelphia. 
LEGISLATION Cloth, J into, 343 pp.., $1.50 net. {Postage 13c.) 

MR. HUGO R. MEYER'S 

GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF RAILWAY RATES 

A study of the Facts of Experience, "interesting from the vigor and 
fearlessness with which it is presented and its mass of information." 

PROBLEMS OF —Boston Transcript. 

GOVERNMENT 

REGULATION MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP IN 

mun/cFpal GREAT BRITAIN 

OWNERSHIP The book discusses with great simplicity, clearness and exactness all 
that may be learned from the actual working of municipal ownership 
where it has been tried most thoroughly. 

Each is cloth, into, $1.50 net. {Postage J3c.) 
Professor THOMAS S. ADAMS and HELEN L. SUMNER 

LABOR PROBLEMS. A Text Book 

Contents : Book I. Woman and Child Labor ; Immigration ; The 

Sweating System ; Poverty, Earnings, and Unemployment. Book II. 

PROBLEMS OF Strikes and Boycotts; Labor Organizations and Employers' Associa- 

THE LABOR tions ; The Agencies of Industrial Peace ; Profit Sharing ; Cooper- 

QUESTION ation; Industrial Education ; Labor Laws ; The Material Progress ot 

the Wage Earning Classes. 

Cloth, i2mo, 57qpp., $1.60 net. {Postage 13 cents.) 

MRS. FLORENCE KELLEY, Sec'y of the Consumers' League in 

SOME ETHICAL GAINS THROUGH LEGISLATION 

" The book is a collection of interesting incidents gathered in this 

wide experience and a comparative study of the statutes and judicial 

PROBLEMS OF decisions of the States and nation, on three vital questions — child la- 

CHILD LABOR bor, woman suffrage and the sweating system. . . . The book, as a 

£TC. whole, is a real tonic for all who are discouraged in their duties." 

— The Boston Transcript. 

Citizens' Library, leather back,34J pp., i2mo, $1.25 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenve, New York 



The Citizens' Library 

Of Economics, Politics and Sociology 

UNDER THE GENERAL EDITORSHIP OF 

Professor SitlCHARD T. ELY, Ph.D., LL.D. 

of the University of Wisconsin 



EARLIER ISSUES 



STUDIES IN THE EVOLUTION OF INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY 
By RICHARD T. ELY, University of Wisconsin. 

BAIL WAY LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES 

By BALTHASAR H. MEYER, Ph.D., Professor of Insti- 
tutes of Commerce^ University of Wisconsin. 

IRRIGATION INSTITUTIONS 

A Discussion of the Economic and Legal Questions created by the 
Growth of Irrigated Agriculture in the Arid "West 

By ELWOOD MEAD, C.E., M.S., Chief of Irrigation In 
vestigations, Department of Agriculture. 

MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING AND SANITATION 

By M. N. BAKER, Ph.B., C.E., Associate Editor of En- 
gineering News; Editor of A Manual of American Water 
Works. 

AMERICAN MUNICIPAL PROGRESS 

By CHARLES ZUEBLIN, Ph.B., D.B., Professor of Sociology 
in the University of Chicago. 

ECONOMIC CRISES 

By EDWARD D. JONES, Ph.D., /««/^r Professor of Econ- 
omics and Industry^ University of Michigan. 



Each Volume, half leather, $1.25 net (Postage iic.) 



THE CITIZENS' LIBRARY 

Of Economics, Politics and Sociology 

Edited by RICHARD T. ELY, Ph. D. LL.D. 

Professor of Political Economy and Director of the School of Economics aad Political 
Science in the University of Wisconsin^ Author of ''''Socialism, and Social Re- 
foryn^'' ''''Monopolies and Trusts^ 

*' This has already proven itself one of the most fruitful among the different 'libraries' 
of the sort, in yielding stimulating books upon the modern phases of economic 
and social science." — Public Ledger^ Philadelphia 



THE MOST RECENT ISSUES 

ETHICAL GAINS THKOUGH LEGISLATION 

By FLORENCE KELLEY, Secretary of the National Con- 
sumers" League. 

AN INTBODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF AGKICULTUKAL 
ECONOMICS 

By HENRY C. TAYLOR, M.S. Agr., Ph.D., Assistant Pro- 
fessor of Political Economy in the University of Wisconsin^ 
and Expert in the Office of Experiment Stations^ United States 
Department of Agriculture. 

THE ELEMENTS OP SOCIOLOGY 

By FRANK W. BLACKMAR, V\i.-D., Professor of Sociology 
and Economics in the University of Kansas. 

FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIOLOGY 

By EDWARD ALSWORTH ROSS, Ph.D., Professor of 
Sociology in the University of Nebraska^ Author of '■'■ Social 
Control.^'' 

COLONIAL ADMINISTBATION 1 

By PAUL S. REINSCH, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science 
in the University of Wisconsin^ Author of '•''Colonial Govern- 
ment^'' etc. 

Each, half leather, $1.25 net (Postage iic.) 



PUBLISHED BY 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

SIXIY-FOUR AND SIXTY-SIX FIFTH AVENUE 
NEW YORK 



JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN 

Historical and Political Science 

(Edited by H. B. ADAMS, 1882-1901.) 
J. M. VINCENT, J. H. HOLLANDER, W. W. WILLOUGHBY, Editors. 



THE TWENTY-FOURTH SERIES (J906) CONTAINS 
THE FOLLOWING PAPERS: 

SPANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS PRECEDING THE WAR OF 
1898. By H. E. Flack. 50 cents. 

THE FINANCES OF AMERICAN TRADE UNIONS. By Aaron M. Sakolski. 75 cents. 

EARLY DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RUS- 
SIA. By John C. Hildt. 50 cents. 

STATE RIGHTS AND POLITICAL PARTIES IN NORTH CAROLINA, 1776-1870. 
By H. M. Wagstaff. 50 cents. 

NATIONAL LABOR FEDERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES. By William Kirk. 
50 cents, 

MARYLAND DURING THE ENGLISH CIVIL WARS. Part II. 50 cents. By B. C. 
Steiner. 

ANNUAL SERIES, 1883-1905. 

SERIES I. — Local Institutions. 479 pages. $4.00. 
SERIES II. — Institutions and Economics. 629 pages. $4.00. 
SERIES III. — Maryland, Virginia and Washington. 595 pages. $4.00. 
SERIES IV. — Municipal Government and Land Tenure. 600 pages. $3.50. 
SERIES V. — Municipal Government, History and Politics. 559 pages. $3.50. 
SERIES VI. — The History of Co operation in the United States. 540 pages. $3.50. 
SERIES VII. — Social Science, Municipal and Federal Government. (Not sold sepa 

rately. ) 
SERIES VIII.— History, Politics and Education. ( Not sold separately.) 
SERIES IX.— Education, Politics and Social Science. ( Not sold separately.) 
SERIES X.— Church and State: Columbus and America. 630 pages. $3.50. 
SERIES XL— Labor, Slavery and Self-Government. 574 pages. $3.50. 
SERIES XII. — Institutional and Economic History. 626 pages. $3.50, 
SERIES XIII. — South Carolina, Maryland and Virginia. 606 pages. $3.50. 
SERIES XIV.— Baltimore, Slavery and Constitutional History. 588 pages. $3.50. 
SERIES XV. — American Economic History. 618 pages. $3.50 

SERIES XVI. — Anglo-American Relations and Southern History. 624 pages. $3.50. 
SERIES XVII. — Economic History : Maryland and the South. 600 pages. $3.50. 
SERIES XVIII.— Taxation in the South : Church and Education. 582 pages. $3.50. 
SERIES XIX.— Diplomatic and Constitutional History. 650 pages. $3,50. 
SERIES XX.— Colonial and Economic History. 622 pages. $3.50. 
SERIES XXL— Indiana, North Carolina and Maryland. 580 pages. $3.50. 
SERIES XXII.— Social and Industrial History. 651 pages. $3.50, 
SERIES XXIII. — Colonies, Revolution, Reconstruction. 700 pages. $3.50. 

RECENT EXTRA VOLUMES. 
AMERICAN OPINION OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. By C. D. Hazen. 325 

pp. Cloth. $a.oo. 
INDUSTRIAL EXPERIMENTS IN THE BRITISH COLONIES OF NORTH 

AMERICA. By Eleanor L. Lord. 164 pp. Cloth. ^1.25. 
STATE AID TO HIGHER EDUCATION. 100 pp. $1.00. 
THE FINANCIAL HISTORY OF BALTIMORE. By J. H. Hollander. 400 pages. 

Cloth. $2.00. 
CUBA AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. By J. M. Callahan. 508 pp. Cloth. $3.00. 
THE AMERICAN WORKMAN. By E. Levasseur. (Translation). 540 pp. Cloth. $3.00. 
HERBERT B. ADAMS. A Memorial Volume. 232 pages. Cloth. 

A HISTORY OF SLAVERY IN VIRGINIA. By J. C. Ballagh. 160 pp. Cloth. $1.50. 
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION IN FftDVIDENCE, 1636-1901. By H. K. 

Stokes. 474 pp. Cloth. $3.50. 

The set of twenty-four series is now offered uniformly bound in cloth for $80.00. 

Suhscriptions for the regular Annual Series^ with index ^ ^3.00 {foreign 
postage 50 cents). Bound in cloth ^3.50. 

All business communications should be addressed to 

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. 



Scientific Confirmations 

OF 

Old Testament History 

By G. FREDERICK WRIGHT 

D.D., LL.D., F.G.S.A. 

Professor of the Harmony of Science and Revelation in Oberlin College • 
author of "The Logic of Christian Evidences," " Scientific Aspects 
of Christian Evidences," " The Ice Age in North Amer- 
ica," " Man and the Glacial Period," Etc. 

CONTENTS 

I. The Witness of the New Testament. 

11. Middle and Later Jewish History. 

III. Israel in Egypt. 

IV. The Exodus. 

V. Physical Preparation for Israel in Palestine. 

VI. Traditions of the Deluge. 

VII. Scientific Credibility of the Deluge. 

VIII. The Glacial Epoch as a Vera Causa. 

IX. Evidences of a Deluge in Europe. 

X. The Evidence of a Deluge in Asia. 

XL The Deluge in North America. 

XII. The First Chapter of Genesis, and Modern Science. 

$2.00 net; postpaid, $2.15 ; 
with a year's subscription to the Bibliotheca Sacra, $4.25. 

CLO TH, i2mo, 450 PAGES, 40 ILLUSTRATIONS 



The Bibliotheca Sacra Company 

OBERLIN, OHIO 



Librairie Guillaumin et C'®, 14 rue de Richelieu, k Paris 



Journal des Economistes 

REVUE MENSUELLE 

De la Science Jlconomique et de la Statistique 



Sommaire du Num&o D'Avril igo6 

La Repr6sentation de I'agriculture, par M. Paul 
Bonnaud. — Le Pretendu Antagonisme Economique des 
Nations, par M. J. Novicow. — Le Mouvement Financier 
et Commercial, par M. Maurice Zablet. — Revue Des 
Principales Publications ficonomiques de TEtranger, 
par M. Emile Macquart. — Le Proletariat Medical, par 
M. Rouxel. — Une Culture en sol Vierge aux fitats- 
Unis, par Laborer. — Bulletin. — Soci6t6 d'ficonomie 
Politique. — Comptes Rendus. — Chronique. — Bulletin 
Bibliographique. 



Paris : 
Felix Alcan, Editeu 
108 Boulevard Saint Germain 
Abonnement six mois 20 fr. ; un an 38 fr. 



Harvard Economic Studies 

Published for the Department of Economics, Harvard University 



The Harvard Economic Studies will be published 

as independent volumes of uniform size, separately 

paged, and in cloth binding. 

Vol. I. The English Patents of Monopoly 1^60-1640, by 
William Hyde Price, Ph.D., being the David A. Wells prize 
essay of 1905. 8vo. Price $1.50. 

Vol. II. The Lodging House Problem in Boston^ by 
Albert Benedict Wolfe, Ph.D. 8vo. Price $1.50. 

IN PRESS 

Vol. III. The Stannerirs : a Story of the English Tin 
Miner ^ by George Randall Lewis, Ph.D., being the David 
A. Wells prize essay for 1906. 8vo. Price $1.50. 



ADDRESS ALL ORDERS TO 

Houghton, riifflln & Co., 4 Park St., Boston, Mass. 

The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 

Published for Harvard University. 



Books, periodicals, and manuscript to be addressed, EDITORS 
ofQUARTERLYJOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, Cambridge, Mass. 

Business letters to be addressed, GEO. H. ELLIS CO., Publish- 
ers, 272 Congress Street, Boston, Mass. Subscription, $3.00 a year. 



CONTENTS FOR AUGUST 1907 

I. THE TREASURY AND THE BANKS UNDER SECRETARY 

SHAW A. P. Andrew 

II. THE GROWTH OF THE UNION PACIFIC AND ITS FINAN- 
CIAL OPERATIONS Thomas Warner Mitchell 

III. MODES OF CONSTRUCTING INDEX-NUMBERS A. W^. Flux 

IV. TAX DISCRIMINATION IN THE PAPER AND PULP IN- 

DUSTRY Roswell C. McCrea 

NOTES AND MEMORANDA : 

Municipal Ownership of Telephones in Great Britain A. N. Holcombe . 

Industrial Concentration as shown by the Census William Z. Ripley 
RECENT PUBLICATIONS UPON ECONOMICS. 



Studies in l>i$tory, Economics and Public Dw 

EOiteO bfi tbc 

faculty of Political Science of Columbia University 

VOLUME XXV, 1906-07. 600 pp. Price, $4.00. 

1. ^Municipal Control of Public Utilities. 

By Oscar Lewis Pond, Ph.D. Price, li.oo. 

2. The Budget in the American Commonwealths. 

By Eugene E. Agger, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

3. The Finances of Cleveland. 

By Charles C. Williamson, Ph.D. Price $2.00. 
VOLUME XXVI, 1907. 559 pp. Price, $3.50. 
I. Trade and Currency in Early Oregan. 

By James H. Gilbert, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 
. Luthers's Table Talk. By Preserved Smith, Ph.D. Price, $1.00 

3. The Tobacco Industry in the United States. 

By Meyer Jacobstein, Ph.D. Price, $1.50 

4. Social Democracy and Population. 

By Alvan a. Temney, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents 
VOLUME XXVII, 1907. 578 pp. Price, $3.50. 

1. The Economic Policy of Robert Walpole. 

By Norris a. Brisco, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

2. The United States Steel Corporation. 

By Abraham Berglund, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

3. The Taxation of Corporations in Massachusetts. 

By Harry G. Friedman, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 
VOLUME XXVIII, 1907. 

1. DeWitt Clinton and the Origin of the Spoils System in New York. 

By Howard Lee McBain, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 

2. The Socialization of Ownership. 

By Joseph Harding Underwood. {In press.) 

3. The Development of the Legislature of Colonial Virginia. 

By E. I. Miller. (/« press.) 
VOLUME XXIX, 1907-08 
I. The Enforcement of the Statute of Laborers. 

By Bertha Haven Putman. {In press.) 

The price for each volume is for the set of monographs in paper. Each volume, 
as well as the separate monographs marked*, can be supplied in cloth bound cop- 
ies, for 50c. additional. 

The set of twenty-eight volumes (except that Vol. II can be supplied only in un- 
bound nos. sand 3) is offered bound for $8g. Volumes I, III and IV can be supplied 
only in connection with complete sets. 



For further information, apply to 

Prof. EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, Columbia University, 

or to the MACMILLAN COMPANY, New York. 

London: P. S. KING & SON, Orchard House, Westminister. 



MAGGIO 1907 



GIORNALC 
DEGLI CCONOMISTI 



SONNARIO. 



Pag. 

I. LASITUAZIONEDELMERCATOMONETARIO. . x. 357 

II. L'INTERPOLAZIONE PER LA RICERCA DELLE 

LEGGI ECONOMICHE v. pareto 366 

III. APPUNTI SUI METODI PER LA RILEVAZIONE 

DELL'ANDAMENTO DEL MERCATO DEL 

LAVORO R. BACHI 386 

IV. SE L'ARBITRATO OBBLIGATORIO SIA OGGI POS- 

SIBILE NELL'AGRICOLTURA . . . f. coletti 417 

V. RASSEGNA DEL MOVIMENTO SCIENTIFICO 

Econotnia u. ricci 

VI. CRONACA F. PAPAFAVA 

VII. RECENSIONI 445 



430 
44* 



DIRCZIONE, VIA nONTE ST^VCLLO, PALHZZO 0R5INI 

ROMA 



Publications of the American Economic Association 
FIRST SERIES 

VOLUME I, 1886 

Nt». Price in paper 

I. Reportof Organization of the American Economic Association. Pp.46. $. 50 

2-3. *Relation of the Modern Municipality to the Gas Supply. By E. J. James. 

Pp. 66. - .75 

4. Co-operation in a Western City. By Albert Shaw. Pp. 106. .75 

5. *Co-operation in New England. By Edward W. Bemis. Pp. 136. .75 

6. *Relation of the State to Industrial Action. By Henry C. Adams. 

Pp. S5. .75 

VOLUME II, 1887 

1. Three phases of Co-operation in the West. By Amos G. Warner. Pp. 119. .75 

2. HistoricalSketchof the Finances of Pa. By T. K. Worthington. Pp. 106. .75 

3. The Railway Question. By Edmund J. James. Pp. 68. .75 

4. The Early History of the English Woolen Industry. By W. J. Ashley. 

Pp. 85. * .75 

5. Mediaeval Guilds of England. By Edwin R. A. Seligman. Pp. 113. .75 

6. Relation of Modern Municipalities to Quasi-Public Works. By H. C. Ad- 

ams and others. Pp. 87. .75 

VOLUME III, 1888 

1. Statistics in College, by C. D. Wright; Sociology and Political Economy, 
by F. H. Giddings ; The Legal-Tender Decisions, by E. J. James. Pp. 80. .75 

2. Capital and its Earnings. By John B. Clark. Pp. 69. .75 

3. The Manual Laboring Class, by F. A. Walker ; Mine Labor in the Hock- 
ing Valley, by E. W. Bemis ; Report of the Second Annual Meeting. Pp. 86. .75 
4-5. **Statistics and Economics. By Richard Mayo-Smith. Pp. 127. i.oo 
6. The Stability of Prices. By Simon N. Patten. Pp. 64. .75 

VOLUME IV, 1889 

1. Contributions to the Wages Question; The Theory of Wages, by Stuart 
Wood ; Possibility of a Scientific Law of Wages, by J. B. Clark. Pp. 69. .75 

2. Socialism in England. By Sidney Webb. Pp. 73. .75 

3. Road Legislation for the American State. By J. W. Jenks. Pp. 83. .75 

4. Third Annual Meeting : Report of the Proceedings. Pp. 123. .75 

5. Malthus and Ricardo, by S. N. Patten ; The Study of Statistics, by D. R. 

Dewey ; Analysis in Political Economy, by W.W. Folwell. Pp. 69. .75 

6. *An Honest Dollar. By E. Benjamin Andrews. Pp. 50. .75 

VOLUME V, 1890 

1. The Industrial Transition in Japan. By Yeijiro Ono. Pp, 122. i.oo 

2. Two Essays on Child-Labor. By Willoughby and de Graffenried. 

Pp. 150. .75 

3-4. Papers on the Canal Question. By E. J. James and L. M. Haupt. 

Pp. 85. I.oo 

5. History of the New York Property Tax. By J. C. Schwab. Pp. 108. 1.00 

6. The Educational Value of Political Economy. By S. N. Patten. Pp.36. .75 

VOLUME VI, 1891 

1-2. Fourth Annual Meeting : Report, Papers, Discussions. ^.100 

3. Government Forestry. Papers by Pinchot, Bowers, and Fernow. Pp. 102. .75 
4-5. Municipal Ownership of Gas in the United States. By E. W. Bemis. 

Pp. 185. I.oo 

6. State Railroad Commissions. By Frederick C.Clark. Pp. no. .75 



Publications of the American Economic Association 



VOLUME VII, 1892 

No. Price in pap 

I. The Silver Situation in the United States. By F. W. Taussig. Pp. 1 18. .75 
:: •., **Shifting and Incidence of Taxation. By E. R. A. Seligman. Pp. 

192. 1. 00 

4 5. i:.nl:irj: Funds. By Edward A. Ross. Pp.106. i.oo 

6. The Recifjrocity Treaty with Canada of 1854. By F. E. Haynes. Pp. 70. .75 

VOLUME VIII, 1893 

I. Fifth Annual Meeting: Report of the Proceedings. Pp. 130. .75 
2.3 Housing of the Poor in American Cities. By M. T, Reynolds. Pp. 

132. 1.00 
4-5. Public Assistance of the Poor in France. By Emily G. Balch. Pp. 

180 1.00 

• First Stages of the Tariff Policy of the U. S. By William Hill. Pp. 162. i.oo 

VOLUME IX, 1894 

Sir^' i:al Meeting : Hand-Book and Report. Pp.130. .50 
1-2. Piii; :. ive Taxation in Theory and Practice. By Edwin R. A. 

Seiig .lan. Pp. 222. {In cloth $i.So.) i.oo 

3. The Theory of Transportation. By Charles H. Cooley. Pp. 148. .75 

4. Sir William Petty. By Wilson Lloyd Bevan. Pp. 102. .55 
5-6. Papers on Labor Problems. By J. B. Clark, C. D. Wright, D. R. 

Dev/e/, A. T. Hadley, and J. G. Brooks, Pp. 94. .75 

VOLUME X, 1895 

Seventh ;-.nnual Meeting: Hand-Book and Report. Pp. 138. .50 

1-5. The Canadian Banking System, 1817-1890. By R. M. Breckenridge. 

Pp. J 78. (In cloth $2.jo.) 1.50 

4. Poor L- vs of Massachusetts and New York. By John Cummings. 

P- 56. .75 

Uit.:. )f Ricardo to McCulloch, 1816-1823. Edited by J. H. Hol- 
lanc \ Pp.204. (Inn cloth $2.00.) 1.25 

VOLUME XI, 1896 

1-3. Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro. By F. L. 

Hoffman. Pp. 330. (In cloth $2.00.) 1.25 

^, .' ppreciation and Interest. By Irving Fisher. Pp. no. .75 

,aeral Index to Volumes I-XI (i 886-1 896). .25 

^ Supplied free to owners of sets upon application to the Secretary.) 



Any vol 'He in paper, I4.00 ; in cloth, $5.00 for a single volume, $4.00 for each 
additional vo ime ordered at the same time. Vol. XI, in paper, $2.00; in cloth. $2.50. 

Set of IT volumes in cloth, with index, $41.00. 

■^lTumbc?:3 starred are sold only with the set ; but those double starred can be 
obtained in ..vised edition, issued by the Macmillan Co. 

Note.- During 1896-1899 the Association issued its publications in two series, 
viz.; the bi-rronthly Economic Studies, and the " new series " of larger monographs 
printed at i;- jgular intervals. In 1900 it reverted to the policy of issuing its mono- 
graphs, now called the ' ' third series " of the publications, at irregular quarterly 
i ntervais. 






190? 



Publications of the American Economic Association 



ECONOMIC STUDIES 

VOLUME I, 1896 

No. Price in papet 

Eighth Annual Meeting: Hand-Book and Report. Pp. 178. .50 

I. The Theory of Economic Progress, by J. B. Clark ; The Relation of Changes 

in the Volume of the Currency to Prosperity, by F. A.Walker. Pp. 46. .50 

2 The Adjustment of Wages to Efficiency. Three papers : Gain Sharing, by 

H. R. Nowne; The Premium Plan, by F. A. Halsey ; A Piece-Rate 

System, by F. W. Taylor. Pp. 83. .50 

3. The Populist Movement. By Frank L. McVey. Pp. 81. .50 

4. The Present Monetary Situation. By W. Lexis. Translated by John Cum- 

mings. Pp. 72. .75 

5-6. The Street Railway Problem in Cleveland. By W. R. Hopkins. Pp.94. .50 

VOLUME II, 1897 
Ninth Annual Meeting: Hand-Book and Report. Pp. 162. .50 

1. Economics and Jurisprudence. By Henry C. Adams. Pp. 48. .50 

2. The Saloon Question in Chicago. By John E. George. Pp. 62. .50 

3. The General Property Tax in California. By Carl C. Plehn. Pp, 88. ,50 

4. Area and Population of U. S. at Eleventh Census. By W. F. Wilcox. 

Pp. 60. .50 

5. A Discussion Concerning the Currencies of the British Plantations in Amer- 

ica, etc. By William Douglass. Edited by C.J. Bullock. Pp.228. .50 

6. Density and Distribution of Population in U. S. at Eleventh Census. By 

W. F. Wilcox. Pp. 79. .50 

VOLUME III, 1898 

Tenth Annual Meeting : Hand-Book and Report. Pp.136. .50 

1. Government by Injunction. By William H. Dunbar. Pp.44. .50 

2. Economic Aspects of Railroad Receiverships. By H.H.Swain. Pp. 118. .50 

3. The Ohio Tax Inquisitor Law. By T. N. Carver. Pp. 50. .50 

4. The American Federation of Labor. By Morton A. Aldrich. Pp. 54. .50 

5. Housing of the Working People in Yonkers. By Ernest L. Bogart. 

Pp. 82. .50 

6. The State Purchase of Railways in Switzerland. By Horace Michelle ; 

translated by John Cummings. Pp. 72. .50 

VOLUME IV, 1899 

Eleventh Annual Meeting: Hand-Book and Report. Pp. 126. .50 

1. I. Economics and Politics. By A. T. Hadley. II. Report on Currency 

Reform. III. Report on the Twelfth Census. Pp. 70. .50 

2. Personal Competition. By Charles H. Cooley. Pp. 104. .50 

3. Economics as a School Study. By Frederick R. Clow. Pp. 72. .50 
4-5. The English Income Tax. By J. A. Hill. Pp. 162. i.oo 
6 (and last).* The Effects of Recent Changes in Monetary Standards upon 

the Distribution of Wealth. By Francis S. Kinder. Pp. 91. .50 

Price of the Economic Studies $2.50 per volume in paper, ^3.00 in cloth. 
The set of four volumes, in cloth, $10.00. 

NEW SERIES 

1. The Cotton Industry. By M. B. Hammond. Pp. 382. {/n cloth $2.00.) $1 .50 

2. Scope and Method of the Twelfth Census. Critical discussion by over 

twenty statistical experts. Pp. 625. (In cloth $2.^0.) 2.00 

Both volumes, in cloth^ $4.00. 



LB N m 



Publications of the American Economic Association 



THIRD SERIES 

VOLUME I, 1900 

1. Twelfth Annual Meeting: Papers on Trusts (3); Railroad problem (3); 
Economic theory (3) ; Public finance (2) ; Consumers' league ; Twelfth cen- 
sus. Pp. 186. 1. 00 

2. The End of Villainage in England. By T. W. Page. Pp. 99. i.oo 

3. Essays in Colonial Finance. By members of the Association. Pp.303. 1.50 

4. Currency and Banking in the Provience of the Massachusetts Bay. By A. 
McF. Davis. Parti: Currency. Pp. 464 + 19 photogravure plates. {In 
cloth $2.00.) I 7 c 

VOLUME II, 1901 

1. Thirteenth Annual Meeting: Papers on Commercial education (3) ; Eco- 
nomic theory (3) ; Taxation of quasi public corporations (2) ; Porto Rican 
finance ; Municipal accounts. Pp, 300. 1.25 

2. Currency and Banking. By A. McF. Davis. Part II , Banking. 

Pp. 341 4- 18 photogravure plates. (In cloth $2.00.) 1.75 

3. Theary of Value before Adam Smith. By Hannah R. Sewall. Pp. 132. i.oo 

4. Administration of City Finances in the U. S. By Frederick R. Clow. 

Pp. 144. I.oo 

VOLUME III, 1902 

1. Fourteenth Annual Meeting: Papers on International trade (3); Industrial 
policy (2) ; Public finance (2) ; Negro problem ; Arbitration of labor disputes; 
Economic history. Pp, 400. 1.50 

2. The Negro in Africa and America. By Joseph A. Tillinghast. 

Pp. 240. {/n cloth, $1.^0.) 1.25 

3. Taxation in New Hampshire. By Maurice H, Robinson. Pp. 232. 1.25 

4. Rent in Modern Economic Theory. By Alvin S. Johnson. Pp. 136. .75 

VOLUME IV, 1903 

1. Fifteenth Annual Meeting: Papers on Trade Unions (4); Railway Regula- 
tions (2) ; Theory of Wages ; Theory of Rent ; Oriental Currency Problem ; 
Economics and Social Progress. Pp. 298. 1.25 

2. Ethnic Factors in the Population of Boston. By Frederick A. Bushee 
PP; 171. I.oo 

3. History of Contract Labor in the Hawaiian Islands. By Katharine Coman 
Pp. 74. .75 

4. The Income Tax in the Commonwealths of the United States. By Delos 
O. Kinsman. Pp. 134. i qq 

VOLUME V, 1904 

Sixteenth Annual Meeting. Papers and Proceeding published in two parts. 

1. PART I — Papers and Discussions on Southern Agricultural and Industrial 

Problems (7); Social Aspects of Economic Law; Relations Between 

Rent and Interest. Pp. 240. 1,00 

Southern Ecoijomic Problems — reprinted from part i. .50 

Relations Between Rent and Interest. By Frank A. Fetter and others. 

Reprinted from part I . tq 

2. Part II — Papers and Discussions on The Management of the Surplus Re- 

serve; Theory of Loan Credit in Relation to Corporation Economics; State 
Taxation of Interstate Commerce; Trusts; Theory of Social Causation, i .00 
Theory of Social Causation. By Franklin H. Giddings and others re- 
printed from part 2. ro 






Publications of the American Economic Association 



VOLUME V, 1904 (continued) 
Monopolistic Combinations in the German Coal Industry. By Francis Walker. 

Pp- 340. 1.25 

The Influence of Farm Machinery on Production and Labor. By Hadley 

Winfield Quaintance. Pp. no. .75 

VOLUME VI, 1905 

Seventeenth Annual Meeting. Papers and Proceedings published in two parts. 
Part I — Papers and Discussions on the Theory of Money (3) ; Open Shop 
or Closed Shop (4). Pp. 226. i.oo 

Part 1 1 — Papers and Discussions on Government Interference with Indus- 
trial Combination ; Regulation of Railway Rates ; Taxation of Railways (2) ; 
Preferential Tariffs and Reciprocity (3) ; Inclosure Movement; Economic His- 



By Royal Meeker. 



I.oo 



1.00 



I.oo 



I.oo 

I.oo 

By 

.75 

.25 

By G. E. 

I.oo 



tory of the United States. Pp. 270. 

3. The History and Theory of Shipping Subsidies. 
Pp. 230. 

4. History of Labor Legislation in New York. By F. R. Fairchild. 
Pp. 218. 

VOLUME VII, 1906 

1. Eighteenth Annual Meeting : Papers and Discussions on Theory of Distri- 
bution ; Government Regulation of Railway Rates (2) ; Municipal Ownership 
(2) ; Labor Disputes (2) ; The Economic Future of the Negro (2). 

Pp. 325. 

2. Railroad Rate Control. By H. S. Smalley. Pp. 147. 

3. On Collective Phenomena and the Scientific Value of Statistical Data. 
E. G. F. Gryzanovski. Pp. 48. 
Handbook of the Association, 1906. Pp. 48. 

4. The Taxation of the Gross Receipts of Railways in Wisconsin. 
Snider. Pp. 138. 

VOLUME VIII, 1907 

1. Nineteenth Annual Meeting: Papers and Discussions on Wages as Deter- 
mined by Arbritration ; Round Table Meetings (3) ; Western Civilization and 
Birth Rate ; Economic History (2) ; Government Regulation of Insurance (2) ; 
Trusts and Tariff (3) ; Child Labor. Pp. 268. I.oo 

2. Historical Sketch of the Finances and Financial Policy of Massachusetts 
from 1780 to 1905. By C.J. Bullock. Pp. 144. i.oo 
Handbook of the Association, 1907. Pp. 50. .25 

3. The Labor Legislation of Connecticut. By Alba M. Edwards. Pp. 322. i.oo 

The entire Publications, 1886- 1906, viz., first series, new series, Economic 
Studies, and third series, vols. 1-7, twenty-four volumes, in cloth, $78.00. Special 
price to libraries on application. The supply of complete sets is now below fifty. 

The price of the Third Series by volumes is the same as that of the first ser- 
ies ; see above. 

Cloth bound volumes will be sent, prepaid, to members, for 75 cents each, in 
exchange for the unbound numbers, returned to the Secretary prepaid, and in 
good condition. Copies in half morocco are 50 cents per volume more than those 
in cloth. 

Separate subscriptions by non-members, libraries, etc., $4.00 per year. Any 
single monograph may be obtained at the price given above. One-sLxth dis- 
count to members and subscribers on all others. 



The American Economic Association, founded, among other purposes, for "the 
encouragement of economic research," and "the encouragement of perfect free- 
dom of economic discussion," has more than a thousand members, including pub- 
lic and professional men and most of the leading students of political economy in 
America. Membership dues are three dollars a year. Each member receives all 
current reports and publications of the Association. 



Address applications for membership and 
inquiries to the 

SECRETARY of the AMERICAN 
ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION, 

Princeton^ N, J. 



Address all orders to the publishers^ 

THE MACMILLAN CO. 

66 Fifth Avenue, - - Nrw York 



